On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Colin Wallis <colin@kantarainitiative.org> wrote:
Thanks.So to answer the detail vs general question my sense is general, but with each major aspect addressed, so that the detail cycle works through those.The timing of the detail is critical too. In particular cashflow and IPR.Re IPR. Sure. BOK is the biggie there and needs a plan. But the rest can't just be ignored. For example the CoCo is on ID Pro's website now, with no attribution, that a CC-SA artefact would expect to have. Kind of implied as with the whole site content but it is this sense of ID Pro being right on top of its operational game that will give the Board confidence that the eventual plan will be fully thought through.Anyway. Enough of me. I would like to hear other SC views.CheersColinAdvance apologies for typosOn 1 May 2017 07:51, "Ian Glazer" <iglazer@salesforce.com> wrote:Thanks for the feedback Colin. I have some comments inline as well as a general comment - was the expectation from the Board for this piece to be a detailed exit plan or something more general? Other comments inline...On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 3:00 AM, Colin Wallis <colin@kantarainitiative.org> wrote:Thanks IanA good first cut, and at a high level I think it captures the general direction of travel.One of the things that doesn't appear clear, is that ID Pro might continue to add debt in Kantara after it has incorporated. Just doing that requested exercise of asking consent to transfer all those folks is not a one hour job. Kantara only has to remember back as far as last year and the Kantara - IEEE-ISTO split...:-). Of course, I could be quite wrong, and that hundreds of thousands of dollars arrive into ID Pro, and the effort becomes trivial to underwrite. But just as you mention 'time-payments' you probably need to set the expectations of the Board that the split may not be a 'here today - gone tomorrow' scenario as of the day of incorporation... unless you and we as an SC really think that is the case.The goal is to not incur further Kantara debt if at all possible. For example, the opt-out, I'd prefer to have Virtual do this on IDPro's tab if possible.That then has implications on the 3 year limit, because the Board might reasonably expect that clock to start ticking when there is zero ID Pro in Kantara. They might consider a slightly longer period.. Maybe offer a period range?I was thinking that Kantara will get the Director-level (top level) status for 3 years gratis. At that point, Kantara can choose to pay to remain at the level or move down to the Advocate level and remain there in perpetuity for free.The other thing that I guess we need to address is the implications of 'shut down' of the DG. As an SC we may want to think that through a bit.ID Pro's happy path seems that 'resources-wise', it will be able to manage most of the workstreams it wants to keep now, and perhaps more.There is no suggestion in your draft of migrating DG materials across..So that really is 'DG shut down' and Kantara archiving the artefacts. Is that what you intend?Yes. My thought is participation in IDPro workstreams transitions as fast as possible to IDPro Board and related committees. The DG should obviously remain intact from an archive perspective.Then there's the issue of IP.We haven't had a discussion in the SC or DG AFAIK about ID Pro's intended IPR policy, but the DG uses CC-SA. So if there was an intention to migrate the artefacts to ID Pro, I can imagine the Board wanting to know exactly under what IPR policy that will take place.I think the largest issue with IPR is the BoK. Beyond that I cannot see an IPR issue with other portions of the work: membership, services, code of practice. Am I off base here?We also haven't revisited the budget scenarios since those early ones that Virtual did late last year. I don't know for sure, but I could foresee the Board wanting to see some numbers, a happy path, an OK path and a sub optimal path.Maybe not right now in this paper, but I think you should make some statement about the intention of drawing up and operating to a budget with targets to get X money in by etc. It would help give confidence in the time-payments proposal.Happy to create it in a separate documentAs I say, good first cut, and it did reflect the draft proposal put to them to think about. So where there are gaps, that is partly that paper's shortcomings at the time :-) - which is the benefit of this 'back - and - forth'. We have a cycle to give it another look and scan for gaps.CheersColinOn Mon, May 1, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Ian Glazer <iglazer@salesforce.com> wrote:______________________________All -I have drafted a response to the Board taking Colin's note into context. Let me know your thoughts._________________
IDProSC mailing list
IDProSC@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/idprosc
--