We invented the notions of a Fedn Agrmnt and a Fedn Authy because without certainly the former one would have little against which to assess, and the latter, well, it’s just good to have someone in charge (or to put it another way, at whom to point one’s finger). So I reckon it’s a ‘No’, a ‘Yes, if you must’ – I mean, I’d want to see that it functioned as a genuine cooperative, because if there was only a single entity appearing to run the show then … aren’t they the authority?
And on your third question, I’d tend towards a definitive ‘No’ – I don’t see how can you have a federation without a federation ??
You should have your wife listen to the next IAWG call – she’d certainly be arranging to have you taken away to the funny farm!
That’s my Fedora thrown into the ring.
Richard G. WILSHER
CEO & Founder, Zygma Inc.
www.Zygma.biz
+1 714 797 9942
From: Jimmy Jung [mailto:jimmy.jung@slandala.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 19:00
To: wg-idassurance@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: [WG-IDAssurance] FAL?
I recall us working on the FAL criteria, and I even recall when we came up with the concept of a Federation Agreement, I even recall my wife thinking we were all quite daft, listening to one of our meetings as we drove down to the beach; but I don’t recall much more. So, as I was glancing through the criteria, I was struggling to answer the following:
Can you be 63C compliant, without a federation agreement, a federation authority or a federation. I think the answers are no, yes and I don’t think so.
That is to say, I think our criteria is set up to require an agreement, and folks that you are agreeing with – even if no one is “in-charge.” I will eventually get into it deeper, but I base this on our criteria that says, “in the absence of a Federation Authority, the parties in the federation must organize the creation of a Federation Agreement between themselves.”
jimmy