Presentation on theme: "November 7, 2012 1:00 – 5:00 p.m. ET. 1:00 p.m. ET - Meeting reconvened and called to order ◦ Review of Agenda and October 29 meeting prior to recess."— Presentation transcript:
November 7, :00 – 5:00 p.m. ET
1:00 p.m. ET - Meeting reconvened and called to order ◦ Review of Agenda and October 29 meeting prior to recess ◦ Bob Blakley, Plenary Chair 1:30 p.m. ET - Directions for Establishing Federated Identity for Voting ◦ Bob Blakley, Plenary Chair ◦ Laura Baareman, Secretariat ◦ Eric Jakstadt, Secretariat 1:45 p.m. ET - Overview of Privacy Committee Operations ◦ James Elste, Privacy Committee Chair 2:00 p.m. ET - Presentation of Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Association ◦ Bob Blakley, Plenary Chair 4:30 p.m. ET - Action Items 5:00 p.m. ET - Recess of Online Meeting ◦ Subject to Call of the Chair or Date Certain Balloting open from 8:00 a.m. ET November 8 until November 11 at 5:00 p.m. ET
Available Online, https://www.idecosystem.org/ROAOnline https://www.idecosystem.org/ROA A Charter for IDESG § 1: Membership and Participation § 2: Steering Group Structure § 3: Elections § 4: Meetings § 5: Decision Making § § 6 – 12: Legal Issues
Bob Blakley, Plenary Chair Process of Review 20 Amendments Received Voting will begin at 8:00 a.m. ET on Thursday, November 8 Voting ends at 5:00 p.m. ET on Sunday, November 11
James Elste, Privacy Committee Chair Overview of Privacy Committee operations under new Rules
Clustered by Related Topic
Name of Proposer: Peter F. Brown Section: Document Page No. 11 & Line No. 28 Delete section Rationale: This is the only provision in the whole section that explicitly covers a specific area of work of the Steering Group; is overly restrictive and could impinge on the charter of the Communications & Outreach Committee. If the management of "marketing and public relations activities" is an administrative duty, this provision is redundant with , which gives Management Council overall responsibility for resources, etc. and is sufficient.
Name of Proposer: David Kearns Section: Document Page No.: 21 & Line No. 28 Proposed Language/Amendment: Strike the section Rationale: Marketing, as all other all-IdESG activities, should be reserved to the Plenary. It could be delegated to others, from time to time, for specific purposes.
Name of Proposer: David Kearns Section: Document Page No.: 12 and Line No.: 16 Proposed Language/Amendment: Change "may" to "shall" (“Voting Members SHALL self-select into one of the defined Stakeholder Categories.”" Rationale: Since one of the stakeholder groups is "unaffiliated" there's no reason to provide a "none of the above" category.
Name of Proposer: David Kearns Section: Document Page No.: 13 & Line No.: 16 Proposed Language/Amendment: Change "may" to "shall" (“an individual SHALL chose to identify with one of the Stakeholder Categories.”) Rationale: Since one of the stakeholder groups is "unaffiliated" there's no reason to provide a "none of the above" category.
Name of Proposer: David Kearns Section: 3.3 Document Page No.: 29 & Line No.: 7-13 Proposed Language/Amendment: Change “may” to “shall” in line 7 and strike “However, Voting Members are not required to join or remain in a Stakeholder Category and in the event a Stakeholder Category is not selected the Member shall be deemed for purposes of participating in the Election Process: 'no category selected'. Rationale: Since there is an "unaffiliated" stakeholder group, the "none of the above" category is confusing and unneeded.
Name of Proposer: David Kearns Section: Document Page No.: 32 & Line No. 8 Proposed Language/Amendment: Strike the section. Rationale: Since there is an "unaffiliated“ stakeholder group, the "none of the above" category is confusing and unneeded.
Name of Proposer: Bob Caldwell Section: Subsequent to Section 12 Document Page No.: 36 to 42, inclusive & Line No.: all Proposed Language/Amendment: Divide the proposed Rules in order to address the following sections separately from the Rules of Association: Special Rule of Order #1, IDESG Decision Making and Work Flow Policy; Proviso #1, Regarding the Initial Interim Period; Proviso #2, Selection of the Secretariat; Proviso #3, Complaint Procedure; and, Proviso #4, Regarding the Initial Interim Period (sic). Rationale: The specified items are secondary motions to the Rules of Association, and should not be considered for approval until the Rules themselves have been approved. It is further suggested that each "Special Rule" or "Proviso" should be considered for approval separately, and not as one item.
Name of Proposer: Bob Caldwell Section: Special Rule of Order #1, and Provisos #1 - 4 Document Page No: pages , inclusive & Line No.: all Proposed Language/Amendment: Delete in their entirety the following sections: Special Rule of Order #1, IDESG Decision Making and Work Flow Policy; Proviso #1, Regarding the Initial Interim Period; Proviso #2, Selection of the Secretariat; Proviso #3, Complaint Procedure; and, Proviso #4, Regarding the Initial Interim Period (sic). Rationale: This deletion is not intended to preclude the Plenary from considering any of the removed sections (together or separately) at a later date. The specified items are secondary motions to the Rules of Association, and should not be considered for approval until the Rules themselves have been approved. It is further suggested that each "Special Rule" or "Proviso" should be considered for approval separately, and not as one item. Deleting these items allows the Rules of Association to be established before incorporating 'subsidiary operative clauses'; approving these clauses as part of the Rules will confuse the status of any subsequent operative clauses.
Name of Proposer: Bob Caldwell Section: N/A (Additional Section) Document Page No.: 35 & Line No.: 12 Rationale: This specifically establishes the Rules of Association as separate from, and precedent to, any subsequent or secondary acts or documents promulgated by any body of the IDESG.
Proposed Language/Amendment: Adding the following text as Section 13 of the Rules of Association: 13 – Status of Subsequent Acts (in relation to the Rules of Association) 13.1 – All “Special Rules of Order”, “Proviso’s”, or other governance documents for IDESG (as described in, but not limited to, Section 12.3) are subordinate to the Rules of Association and not considered part of the actual Rules of Association; and if the Rules and other governance documents are in conflict, the Rules of Association shall take precedence. 13.2 – Any amendment or revision to the Rules (as provided for in Section 10) are part of the Rules and shall not be considered subordinate to the revised or replaced provisions; if the amended Rules are in conflict with other governance documents (as per Section 13.1), the amended Rules of Association shall take precedence.
13.3 – A Preponderance of the Plenary, with a quorum of Voting Members present, may approve a “Special Rule of Order” containing a process for resolving conflicting interpretation of the Rules of Association. 13.4 – All actions, provisos, resolutions, operational documents, etc., approved by IDESG, or its participant organizations must conform to these Rules and the NSTIC Guiding Principles. Any actions taken (by the IDESG, its organizations, or persons acting at the behest, or on behalf of, IDESG and/or subsidiary bodies) which do not conform to these Rules, are hereby voided.
Name of Proposer: Randall Gamby Section: No Section addresses proposed amendment Page No. & Line No.: N/A Proposed Language/Amendment: In order to ensure the Stakeholder Delegate represents the views and opinions of their stakeholders. The Stakeholder Delegate will be responsible to: 1) Join and moderate their Stakeholder's listserv; 2) Solicit stakeholders to join the service to ensure fair and balanced views and opinions; and 3) Define the communication methods to be used to ensure the Stakeholder Delegate will properly represent the views and opinions of their stakeholder group.
Rationale: In discussing this proposed wording with the Ombudsman, it was agreed that this language is not in the rules of association and without these there is a concern regarding the lack of communication detail that is missing from the Charter and By-Laws which involves at its core the ability of the Steering Group to support its purpose as outlined in of the Charter for the Identity Ecosystem Steering Group. Specifically in reference is the second sentence in Section where it clearly states that the “The Steering Group shall bring together all of the interested stakeholders, both in private and public sectors, to confirm that the Identity Ecosystem Framework provides a minimum baseline of privacy, security, interoperability, and ease-of use through standards and policies, without creating unnecessary barriers to entry.” Without formal requirements of the Stakeholder Delegate to communicate with their Stakeholders there is the risk that the individual will be elected and then not solicit their constituents during their term of office. While the Stakeholders can eventually vote them out of office, there are no provisions on their minimum responsibilities. (as a note: is at least one case where the Stakeholder Delegate is yet to reach out and is not even a member of their own listserv).
Name of Proposer: David Kearns Section: Document Page No.: 21 & Line No.: 32 Proposed Language/Amendment: add "subject to ratification by the Plenary at its next meeting.” after "impracticable" Rationale: While the MC is tasked with acting in between meetings of the Plenary, it's actions binding the IdESG should always be subject to Plenary ratification
Name of Proposer: David M. Rosenberg Section: Document Page No.: 24 & Line No.: Proposed Language/Amendment: Replace the current section with the following new section Each Voting Member gives a score from (with nine being the most favorable) to as many of the candidates as he chooses to score. This score is NOT ranking the candidates - the score a voter gives to a candidate is independent of the score the voter gives to other candidates in the same race. For example, if someone felt that (in a single-winner race with five candidates) three of the candidates were excellent, the voter could give each of those three a score of nine. If he felt that another candidate was of medium appropriateness, he could give that candidate a score of five. And if he felt that the last candidate was totally inappropriate, he could give that candidate a score of zero. Voters are encouraged score all the candidates about whom they know enough, but are encouraged not to assign any score to those about whom they don't know enough. Giving a candidate a score of zero is saying, "I know about this candidate and he would be totally inappropriate". Not assigning any score is saying "I'm not comfortable that I know enough about this candidate - I'll rely on other voters who are more knowledgeable about the candidate to score him". An aggregated score for each candidate is computed by taking the sum of the scores that he was given and dividing by "the number of scores he was given + X", where X = the total number of voters participating in that election raised to the 3/4 power. For example, for 100 voters, X would be (The purpose of having X is like requiring a quorum. It prevents a candidate from winning if he is strongly supported by a very small number of people and no one else knows enough about him to score him.) The candidate with the highest aggregated score shall be deemed the winner.
Rationale - Your reasoning for why this amendment should be made: There many methods for aggregating voters' preferences. There are a number of problems with the plurality method. Here is a simple example of a problem with plurality in a single-winner election with three or more candidates. It could be that 60% of the voters support candidates A and B approximately equally and divide their votes equally between them (i.e. each of A and B gets 30% of the vote, but the entire 60% of the voters would be happy with either A or B). The remaining 40% of the voters support candidate C. With plurality, candidate C would win, even though 60% would have preferred either candidate A or B rather than candidate C. The method proposed here (called "range voting" or "score voting") allows each voter to score each candidate about whom the voter knows enough to assign a score and allows the voter to rely on other voters' judgment in cases where the voter doesn't know enough about a candidate to assign a score. It has a quorum-like mechanism that makes it very difficult for a candidate to win if he is strongly supported by a very small number of people and no one else knows enough about him to score him. With plurality voting, the voter is providing very little information - the one candidate he prefers. With range voting, the voter is supplying a lot more information - which candidates he knows enough about and which he doesn't know enough about, which candidate(s) he prefers, and the relative strength of his preference for each candidate. A preferential ranking scheme would let the voter order the candidates, but the order A > C > B wouldn't provide any information about the strength of the voter's preferences. For example, the voter might feel that A was only slightly better than C and C was much better than B or the voter might feel that A was much better than C and C was only slightly better than B. Range voting allows the voter to express all that. In range voting, if a voter believes that some candidates are exactly equal to each other, he could give those candidates exactly the same score. Range voting instructions are simple: You score each candidate about whom you know enough. The scoring (for example a value from 0 to 9) is like judges scoring Olympic figure skating contestants. The ballots are easy to tally and the winner is determined in a single pass.
Name of Proposer: John Linn Section: Introduction Document Page No.: vii & Line No.: 17 Proposed Language/Amendment: Suggest removal of "standards, " as added in redline, reverting clause to "... develop, implement, and maintain policies..." Rationale: Addition of "standards“ within cited items that IDESG shall establish mechanisms to develop appears potentially inconsistent with preceding text (from line 30, p. vi) stating that IDESG shall not itself be a standards development body, and could lead to confusion about what types of activities do and do not fall within IDESG scope.
Name of Proposer: David Kearns Section: Document Page No.: 22 & Line No.: 33 Proposed Language/Amendment: Add: "Notify the membership periodically, and no less than quarterly, of the activities and decisions of the management council via any methods approved by the plenary for notifications." Rationale: Needed for transparency
Name of Proposer: David Kearns Section: Document Page No.: 18 & Line No.: Proposed Language/Amendment: Strike: "the nomination, evaluation and qualification of candidates of IDESG elections;" Rationale: in conflict with section 3.4
Name of Proposer: Ann Racuya-Robbins Section: Document Page No.: 13 & Line No.: 2 Proposed Language/Amendment: add "three (3)" alternate Member Representatives Rationale: A way of balancing the influence of larger and smaller organizations. This number can be adjusted as needed going forward.
Name of Proposer: Ann Racuya-Robbins Section: Document Page No.: 13 & Line No.: 6 Proposed Language/Amendment: strike "multiple" and insert "up to five (5)" Rationale: A way of balancing the influence of larger and smaller organizations. The number can be adjusted going forward.
Name of Proposer: Ann Racuya-Robbins Section: Document Page No.: 35 & Line No.: 24 Proposed Language/Amendment: Add "All meetings shall be recorded. An announcement shall be made at the meeting when the recording begins. Recordings will we archived and made available on the IDESG website." Rationale: In order to align with the IDESG Operating Principles of Openness and Transparency. Further much of the contextual and consensus building as well as rationale for designs and decisions is contained in the discussion during meetings—without recording this is lost. New participants and members may find it difficult to get up to speed with the workflow and work product without access to and review of recordings.
Name of Proposer: Bob Caldwell Section: 10 Document Page No.: 30 & Line No.: 12-19, inclusive Proposed Language/Amendment: Amend the proposed Rules by deleting the current text of Section 10, Adoption and Amendment of the Rules of Association, and replace it with the following text: ◦ 10.1 – Adoption - These Rules of Association are adopted upon approval by simple majority vote of Voting Members.
◦ 10.2 – Amendment ◦ Subsequent to initial approval, the Rules of Association shall only be amended or revised after review of the proposed amendment by both the Management Council and Privacy Committee. These bodies and other Committees or Members may comment on the proposed amendment if they so choose. If comment is not provided within 30 calendar days, it is assumed no comment is forthcoming. – Any official comment must be presented in writing to the Plenary, over the signature of the commenting Member / Chair of the commenting body, and posted on the IDESG website maintained by the Secretariat. – Comments and/or any potential revisions from IDESG bodies, regarding proposed amendments, shall be limited to the area of expertise of the commenting body. – Comments shall not indicate approval or disapproval of the proposed amendment, on the whole, unless 100% of the Voting Members of the commenting body agree with the conclusion.
◦ – At the next Plenary meeting after the ‘commentary period’, the original proposer of the amendment may: – Submit the proposed amendment for approval; – Withdraw the proposed amendment from consideration; or, – Table the proposed amendment for revision. Within 30 calendar days of tabling the motion, the proposer of the amendment must inform the Plenary Chair in writing whether Section , or , will be followed. ◦ – An official text of the proposed amendment (with revisions, if applicable) will be submitted to the Plenary Chair within 7 calendar days of notification that Section will be followed, and posted to the IDESG website no more than 14 calendar days later, for IDESG Member review.
◦ – At the Plenary meeting following execution of Section , the Chair will ask for a second to the amendment. If there is no second, the proposed amendment is withdrawn. If seconded, the Chair will allow the proposer up to 15 minutes to present the amendment to the Plenary. When said presentation is completed, the Chair shall open the floor for discussion of the amendment. ◦ – Any amendment to these Rules must be approved by a Super-majority of the Plenary, with a quorum of Voting Members present. Rationale: Current text of Section 10: Provides for oversight of amendments by only the Management Council and/or Privacy Committee (no other areas of the IDESG); Provides no procedures for amending the Rules of Order; Provides conflicting voting information for approving amendments; and, Allows the IDESG Plenary Privacy Committee undue influence over the amendment process for the Rules of Association, and therefore all IDESG bodies or actions.
Name of Proposer: WWPass Section: §12 Glossary. Organization. Document Page No.: 34 & Line No.: 1-12 Proposed Language/Amendment: Add the following sentence to the definition of Organization: "The intent is to limit each government, business, etc. to a single Membership." Add to Proviso #4 (committee on governance), as an additional item under ¶ A. (3): "Such clarifications to the text of the Rules to clarify that each government, business, etc. is limited to a single Membership." Rationale: All organizations, including governments of any nation or sub-national level and inter-governmental bodies, should be treated identically under the Rules and have an equivalent voice in the deliberations and decisions of the IDESG, regardless of size or role.
Voting Members have received an Use Federated Identity on Closes Sunday, November 11 at 5:00 p.m. ET