Reminder: RIUP WG meeting tomorrow, July 2nd, 1 PM EDT final approval of the DII document changes
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87499194761?pwd=cmhDTHBXV2VTbFBMZzllMlZVbnFoZz09 Meeting ID: 874 9919 4761 *Passcode: 837815* Dial by your location +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) Meeting ID: 874 9919 4761 Passcode: 837815 Good evening to all! After our last WG meeting, having discussed feedback from the Leadership Council, Sal and I reviewed the forward page of the Digital Identifier Inclusion document and specifically the Abstract section. We tagged teamed, with me taking the first step in putting pen to paper and then exchanged content; Sal was spot on in keeping the theme simple and to the point. Now it is your turn to contribute to the final *Abstract *content with the goal being that we will have a majority WG acceptance of the DII document. A short time ago, Sal requested some time to share some other minor changes for consideration. Yes that is acceptable and will also include others on the call, keeping in mind such recommendations are minor; not content change -this document has been review by the Leadership Council *Abstract:* This document is based on the principle that all humans with rights or privileges should have access to digital identifiers and the means to use those rights and privileges. This must be required in our increasingly connected world to support the underserved. Examples of harm and inefficiencies from the exclusion to digital resources are briefly described, along with solutions, in the pages that follow. This report presents requirements for Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), with digital identifier inclusion by default in design, deployment, use and maintenance over its lifecycle.. Have a restful evening, JIm
I asked my Solution architect to review working Draft 9 and provide feedback from the perspective of a CTO working in the Digital trust domain. Here is his feedback:
Good morning, I did a first reading of the Kantara Initiative - Digital Identifier Inclusion document. Maybe I need to read it again for more detailed feedback but my impression of this document, and if I where like a CTO of a company working in that field is the following;
* It does outline the problem and need for more inclusion quite well, however it feels like they want to cover everything and everyone in this report. Which makes it hard to get make sense of where to start, necessary steps or even get an overview of what to consider.
* Some examples are much narrower in scope, and feel like, yes that is something we can solve/support but others felt like not a technology problem but a institutional or society issue
* Since we are working on digital credentials technology my view will be biased, but the report seems to hint at (decentralized) identifiers as the solution, without making a clear case for this problem->solution. The argument is thin and spread throughout the report (and possible linked reports).
I might have missed the point of this report in my first review, but found it pretty difficult to both summarize or formulate specific action points based on what I read. But I will try to make some suggestions based on what I read (and some quick reading of the UNDP document (what does it mean to leave no one behind?).
* Use an existing framework (or create one) to clarify, categorize, and indicate key factors (e.g. the five intersecting factors of being left behind, but then focused on underserved populations)
* Define (sub)goals and actions (like digital literacy, privacy and security, growth, accessibility)
* Identify key elements to reduce the digital divide and increase inclusion (related to previous factors, and goals)
* Discuss how to understand who is excluded, how to include and enable them and how to contribute and unify these innovations to a wider public (i.e. a process)
* Provide a scorecard or roadmap (for C-level?) like a navigation tool and to grasp what areas need improvements and what areas and levels of inclusion one could consider (you can't solve everything at once, but what is basic, what is intermediate and advanced)
* (also some sentences seem to just describe the properties of a digital wallet. which i might it make the paper incoherent/cloudy on what is being discussed and proposed - imho what a digital wallet should be and do is a different topic and should mostly be left out?)
[signature_2773705664]
Jorge Flores | Co-founder and CTO | Email: jorge@entidad.io | https://www.entidad.iohttps://www.entidad.io/
From: jim kragh
Here are some suggested changes,
I will also go look to see how I can tie this to Google doc and see how we
move forward from version 9
From: Jorge Flores
participants (3)
-
jim kragh -
Jorge Flores -
Salvatore D'Agostino