ID-Legal

From IIW
Revision as of 04:19, 1 December 2008 by IdentityWoman (talk | contribs) (New page: '''Convener:''' Judi Clark '''Notes-taker:''' Judi '''Attendees:''' * Jeff Stollman, * Lucy Lynch, * Greg Hevencamp, * Judi Clark, * Kaliya Hamlin, * Gabe Wachob, * Mike Kirkwood,...)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Convener: Judi Clark

Notes-taker: Judi

Attendees:

  • Jeff Stollman,
  • Lucy Lynch,
  • Greg Hevencamp,
  • Judi Clark,
  • Kaliya Hamlin,
  • Gabe Wachob,
  • Mike Kirkwood,
  • Charles Andres

Technology Discussed/Considered: ID technology broadly

Discussion notes, key understandings, outstanding questions, observations, and, if appropriate to this discussion: action items, next steps:

International considerations for conference: how to be inclusive of all interested parties. Question from last call:

How do we enhance/foster interactions/conversations between attorneys and technologists?

Lucy: “attorney” is too narrow: needs to be policy makers, judges, others that represent global interests.

Jeff: if new admin calls on tech people, needs to be driven from policy point of view.

Greg:: tech people more likely to be consulted, acknowledged

Lucy: equal balance of regulators and technologists to hear both sides’ concerns

Kaliya: seriously consider having conf in DC area, winter or spring, could be an amazing event

Jeff: outside of regulators, many corps have public policy people, get them energized, esp global standards. (They know how to play the game, we don’t.) These topics play to everyone that has a website.

Kaliya: asks Lucy if she has convened evens in DC, Lucy said possibility.

Kaliya: 3 major components: venue/space/time/logistics, setting context, invitation

Lucy: if we’re pulling people from regulatory envt, might ask them to prepare 10 min presentation of what their issues are, their interest in this space

Gabe: “Legal conference” (MCLE credit implied, etc); what we’re really looking for are policy people. Add to the title. Important.

Lucy: much more interested in inviting John (Int’l MOUs, negotiations, up to speed on issues), someone from PrimeLife (Euro issue on policy, focus on user experience).

Mike: Platform by Apple iPhone, has lots of functionality—find legal team that made that work, good operating case (negotiated w/ telcos, etc)

Lucy: Meta level of expressing invitation

Jeff: how much national and how much global? Need good balance

Kaliya: need to focus three components above

Mike: Health & use cases at barcamps: check speakers and agenda topics that might add to flow

Lucy: from identity side: whose issues are interest to match up? Data portability, how to engage

Charles: financial transfer of liability associated w any of these transactions. Renee Lloyd w Berkman Center—her work is relevant to this discussion

Jeff: volunteers to help with group that develops invitee list

Gabe: Regulatory liability risk (can’t shift risk), financial rish management (more private sector, market may figure this out). Stuff like COPPA and health management. Increasing regulatory framework. Careful not to turn event into argument (battling agendas)

Kaliya: likes the questions about who is essential to attend (and from other groups).

Mike: superstruct: anonymous legal team, available when issues came up, won cases on behalf of small legal issues relative to social causes E.g., Japan: OpenID and transactions are done.

Gabe: Pubic policy vs private market structures; need regulatory people.

Mike:Legal team is a tool that acts to resolve conflicts as they arise. E.g., demo of guy hacking proof of concept for making info cards accepted on iPhones.

Lucy: don’t ask regulators what we can/can’t do. Ask what technologies can enable communications, what do we need to be aware of for policy support without encumbering underlying capabilities.

Mike: Apple chose to work w telco (regulators).

Lucy: handoffs between proprietary frameworks: making things interoperable, using language to develop link between technology and policy rules

Gabe: is this an advocacy group or about interesting conversations? There are other advocacy groups out there, many of which I agree with

Jeff: various topics, prioritize them into workable list, cluster when appropriate, develop agenda

Kaliya: agenda is not relevant, is unconference

Lucy: initial conversation is fire starter for event, broadening scope of conversation.

Charles: start w philosophy, change agents, parties who want to learn from each other, event works toward real change

Lucy: Washington DC is probably a great place; what is reasonable timeframe for building event? (spring)

Mike: Uber-theme: move iiw to DC?

Charles: asked Kaliya about Boston conf

Lucy: how many people? Kaliya: 80, now over 100. Lucy: between 40-100 is about as much as we can handle in this space.

Gabe: is it limiting to call it “Internet” identity

Lucy: identity is a hot topic now, getting policy makers to limit their focus from cybersecurity, trust and controlling the world…

Mike: Health; in context of healthcare you’re just someone who may work or fail. Be nice if the agenda included them, would add to conversation

Jeff: sponsors? Appropriate names in commercial space would attract

Action items:

  • Kaliya and Lucy will draw up a timeline for 50-80 person conf, also meta=thematic agenda-like guidelines
  • Talk with Dazza re policy space (also join him at lunch table today!)