All - I have drafted a response to the Board taking Colin's note into context. Let me know your thoughts. i -- Ian Glazer Senior Director, Identity +1 202 255 3166 @iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
Thanks Ian A 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. 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? 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? 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. 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. As 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. Cheers Colin Executive Director Cell: +44 (0)7490 266 778 Kantara Initiative Inc. <https://kantarainitiative.org/> On 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.
i
-- Ian Glazer Senior Director, Identity +1 202 255 3166 <(202)%20255-3166> @iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
_______________________________________________ IDProSC mailing list IDProSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/idprosc
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 Ian
A 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 document
As 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.
Cheers Colin
Executive Director Cell: +44 (0)7490 266 778 <+44%207490%20266778> Kantara Initiative Inc. <https://kantarainitiative.org/>
On 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.
i
-- Ian Glazer Senior Director, Identity +1 202 255 3166 <(202)%20255-3166> @iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
_______________________________________________ IDProSC mailing list IDProSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/idprosc
-- Ian Glazer Senior Director, Identity +1 202 255 3166 <(202)%20255-3166> @iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
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. Cheers Colin Advance apologies for typos On 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 Ian
A 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 document
As 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.
Cheers Colin
Executive Director Cell: +44 (0)7490 266 778 <+44%207490%20266778> Kantara Initiative Inc. <https://kantarainitiative.org/>
On 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.
i
-- Ian Glazer Senior Director, Identity +1 202 255 3166 <(202)%20255-3166> @iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
_______________________________________________ IDProSC mailing list IDProSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/idprosc
-- Ian Glazer Senior Director, Identity +1 202 255 3166 <(202)%20255-3166> @iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
Sorry Colin - but what is CoCo? 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.
Cheers Colin
Advance apologies for typos
On 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 Ian
A 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 document
As 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.
Cheers Colin
Executive Director Cell: +44 (0)7490 266 778 <+44%207490%20266778> Kantara Initiative Inc. <https://kantarainitiative.org/>
On 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.
i
-- Ian Glazer Senior Director, Identity +1 202 255 3166 <(202)%20255-3166> @iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
_______________________________________________ IDProSC mailing list IDProSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/idprosc
-- Ian Glazer Senior Director, Identity +1 202 255 3166 <(202)%20255-3166> @iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
-- Ian Glazer Senior Director, Identity +1 202 255 3166 @iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
Hi Ian – I think he means the Code of Conduct. Thanks, Megan From: idprosc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:idprosc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Ian Glazer Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 8:37 AM To: Colin Wallis <colin@kantarainitiative.org> Cc: idprosc@kantarainitiative.org Subject: Re: [Idprosc] Board Response Sorry Colin - but what is CoCo? On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Colin Wallis <colin@kantarainitiative.org<mailto: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. Cheers Colin Advance apologies for typos On 1 May 2017 07:51, "Ian Glazer" <iglazer@salesforce.com<mailto: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<mailto:colin@kantarainitiative.org>> wrote: Thanks Ian A 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 document As 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. Cheers Colin Executive Director Cell: +44 (0)7490 266 778<tel:+44%207490%20266778> Kantara Initiative Inc.<https://kantarainitiative.org/> [https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7y8c3lrgRtUUjRFMHFMQm1BR3M&export=download] On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Ian Glazer <iglazer@salesforce.com<mailto:iglazer@salesforce.com>> wrote: All - I have drafted a response to the Board taking Colin's note into context. Let me know your thoughts. i -- Ian Glazer Senior Director, Identity +1 202 255 3166<tel:(202)%20255-3166> @iglazer<https://twitter.com/iglazer> _______________________________________________ IDProSC mailing list IDProSC@kantarainitiative.org<mailto:IDProSC@kantarainitiative.org> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/idprosc -- Ian Glazer Senior Director, Identity +1 202 255 3166<tel:(202)%20255-3166> @iglazer<https://twitter.com/iglazer> -- Ian Glazer Senior Director, Identity +1 202 255 3166 @iglazer<https://twitter.com/iglazer>
except the Code of Conduct isn't on idpro.org On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Megan Cannon <mcannon@virtualmgmt.com> wrote:
Hi Ian – I think he means the Code of Conduct.
Thanks,
Megan
*From:* idprosc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:idprosc-bounces@ kantarainitiative.org] *On Behalf Of *Ian Glazer *Sent:* Thursday, May 04, 2017 8:37 AM *To:* Colin Wallis <colin@kantarainitiative.org> *Cc:* idprosc@kantarainitiative.org *Subject:* Re: [Idprosc] Board Response
Sorry Colin - but what is CoCo?
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.
Cheers
Colin
Advance apologies for typos
On 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 Ian
A 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 document
As 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.
Cheers
Colin
Executive Director
Cell: +44 (0)7490 266 778 <+44%207490%20266778>
Kantara Initiative Inc. <https://kantarainitiative.org/>
On 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.
i
--
Ian Glazer
Senior Director, Identity
+1 202 255 3166 <(202)%20255-3166>
@iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
_______________________________________________ IDProSC mailing list IDProSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/idprosc
--
Ian Glazer
Senior Director, Identity
+1 202 255 3166 <(202)%20255-3166>
@iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
--
Ian Glazer
Senior Director, Identity
+1 202 255 3166 <(202)%20255-3166>
@iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
-- Ian Glazer Senior Director, Identity +1 202 255 3166 @iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
Indeed not. Should have double checked. It was the Mission and Vision. The thrust of the point is to get a copyright statement onto the site... Cheers Executive Director Cell: +44 (0)7490 266 778 Kantara Initiative Inc. <https://kantarainitiative.org/> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Ian Glazer <iglazer@salesforce.com> wrote:
except the Code of Conduct isn't on idpro.org
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Megan Cannon <mcannon@virtualmgmt.com> wrote:
Hi Ian – I think he means the Code of Conduct.
Thanks,
Megan
*From:* idprosc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto: idprosc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] *On Behalf Of *Ian Glazer *Sent:* Thursday, May 04, 2017 8:37 AM *To:* Colin Wallis <colin@kantarainitiative.org> *Cc:* idprosc@kantarainitiative.org *Subject:* Re: [Idprosc] Board Response
Sorry Colin - but what is CoCo?
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.
Cheers
Colin
Advance apologies for typos
On 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 Ian
A 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 document
As 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.
Cheers
Colin
Executive Director
Cell: +44 (0)7490 266 778 <+44%207490%20266778>
Kantara Initiative Inc. <https://kantarainitiative.org/>
On 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.
i
--
Ian Glazer
Senior Director, Identity
+1 202 255 3166 <(202)%20255-3166>
@iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
_______________________________________________ IDProSC mailing list IDProSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/idprosc
--
Ian Glazer
Senior Director, Identity
+1 202 255 3166 <(202)%20255-3166>
@iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
--
Ian Glazer
Senior Director, Identity
+1 202 255 3166 <(202)%20255-3166>
@iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
-- Ian Glazer Senior Director, Identity +1 202 255 3166 <(202)%20255-3166> @iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
Hi Ian - a good start for sure. I'm trying to wrap my head around a few things: - what's best for the ID Professionals as individuals & the organizations that employ them - what's best for Kantara's paying members - what's best for Kantara's volunteer participants and contributors - what's best for the IDPro organization - what's best for Kantara I don't know if there's a way to rationally prioritize the list, other than to say that the first 3 items (who we serve - the beneficiaries?) must be the highest priority - if we grow the market, all boats will rise. Or if the sea is higher, the pie is bigger and we all get more pie :) A vibrant, growing, relevant community is an obvious objective for the 2 organizations for the purposes of serving the beneficiaries. If each organization is 'the place to be' for our target audiences, then we can have more confidence about financial sustainment. For IDPro members, I think the big draw will be related to teaching/learning, events, certification of individuals For Kantara dues members, the draw is around the support of open standards in the domain, and certification (using a variety of methods) of organizations. For Kantara volunteer contributors, the draw is related to a community of like-minded people, having a stake in creating whatever they are creating, community contribution and whatever their career motivations might be. All of the above have a financial or commercial aspect as well - everyone and every org has their individual reasons to contribute. OK - I'm getting off-track :) - The issue of IP ownership and transfer needs more discussion - I'm not predisposed in any particular direction on this - Repayment is important, of course - I think the (intangible) opportunity cost is actually the more significant cost, and that's why I'm trying to think of financial returns into the future - there's gotta be a way we can do this for mutual benefit - my reasons for wanting Kantara representation on the IDPro board would be acting in an advisory capacity at first - and later as a seed to grow the 'association of ID associations' :-) but that will be a ways down the road, if ever A question for all - is there a way to create a mutually-beneficial connection between the two organizations. One that won't be a financial burden - so probably service or member based rather than a 'rent'. What if Kantara and IDPro jointly establish a training courses venture? We pay to create course material, then sell licenses for trainers to deliver it. These can be small topics at first. I'll stop for the moment - hope this helps keep us all focused on our beneficiaries - because without them, there's no point to any of this andrew. *Andrew Hughes *CISM CISSP Independent Consultant *In Turn Information Management Consulting* o +1 650.209.7542 m +1 250.888.9474 1249 Palmer Road, Victoria, BC V8P 2H8 AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/ *Identity Management | IT Governance | Information Security * On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 12:00 AM, Colin Wallis <colin@kantarainitiative.org> wrote:
Thanks Ian
A 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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
As 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.
Cheers Colin
Executive Director Cell: +44 (0)7490 266 778 <+44%207490%20266778> Kantara Initiative Inc. <https://kantarainitiative.org/>
On 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.
i
-- Ian Glazer Senior Director, Identity +1 202 255 3166 <(202)%20255-3166> @iglazer <https://twitter.com/iglazer>
_______________________________________________ IDProSC mailing list IDProSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/idprosc
_______________________________________________ IDProSC mailing list IDProSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/idprosc
participants (4)
-
Andrew Hughes -
Colin Wallis -
Ian Glazer -
Megan Cannon