Kantara Initiative Board of Trustees TeleconferenceDate and Time
Meeting Minute StatusApproved by the KI BoT Dec. 3, 2009. Attendees
Apologies
Agenda1. Approve minutes Minutes1. Approve MinutesMOTION: CA moved to approve the Nov. 5, 2009 minutes. Intel seconded. No discussion. No objections. Motion carried. 2. Accept LAP IP document contributionsSummary: KI accepted a second round of document contributions from Liberty Alliance, as detailed below. MOTION: Therefore Kantara Initiative accepts the assignment of the following documents and thanks Liberty Alliance Project for its generous contribution: LAP so moved. ISOC seconded. No discussion. No objections. Motion carried. 3. Status of Officer NominationsSummary: No nominations have been received to date. While very committed to the work, given changing workplace obligations and opportunity for new experience, the current officers would encourage some new participation, with particular encouragement for consideration by the deployer community given that unique perspective. 4. OpenLiberty open source project status and suggested planSummary: OpenLiberty currently operates as an independent organization with legal status as program of IEEE-ISTO, "on behalf of LAP", incurring no costs to either organization. The request of the OpenLiberty project leads is to have this same sort of arms length support under Kantara Initiative. There are several strong open source projects under OpenLiberty currently operating that would be beneficial to KI in this capacity. Consensus this is a good direction to pursue on behalf of OpenLiberty and Kantara Initiative. ACTION ITEM: Brett to report back to OpenLiberty the agreement of the BoT and also work with IEEE-ISTO to facilitate this. 5. Transfer of LAP residual funds at end of yearSummary: On the LAP MB call there was a motion passed to transfer to KI at the end of the year all residual funds, save a small amount to be retained by LAP for potential shut-down fees. With this transfer comes the responsibility to pay any unforeseen costs up until April 1, 2010, up to the amount that is being contributed. There are no anticipated bills forthcoming, but this was suggested to be included as a prudent clause. A motion related to this will be forthcoming. 6. Format of face-to-face March meetingSummary: BoT recognizes the value of having time to interact with the rest of the membership vs. spending time exclusively in BoT meetings. As such, agreement that a meeting format that would facilitate BoT time and extended time with other groups is preferred (suggested format of BoT, as such, meeting for 1/2 day all three days, leaving morning open for other meetings/participation). 7. ISO Privacy project statusSummary: LAP currently has a Category C relationship with ISO. There is a current leadership opportunity in ISO in the area of privacy that is well aligned with the work of the P3WG. For KI to be involved, we'll need a Category C liaison relationship with ISO. ISO process only allows for a vote to approve a Category C liaison once a year, which won't come until April 2010. If we were to take a role in this privacy work, only the current LAP liaison relationship will allow this to happen for this gap of time. LAP MB has agreed to allow for this through the April period (as a legal entity--no funding or operating expenses will be incurred). This requires KI to 1) adopt a liaison policy that allows for confidentiality and 2) allow editorship/contribution to this work to be made by our Director of Privacy/Public Policy in 2010 as part of his scope of work (noting this will not dominate his work load). Consensus this is valuable work for KI to support and, as such, this plan is agreeable to all. 8. IPR Status – names, typesDiscussion: There is ongoing discussion on the LC thread about: 1) the potential new names of the current IPR options (which seem to be agreeable to all, noting that removal of the term "Liberty" is what started this work item) and 2) desire to create a guidance document/explanatory educational text to best pick suitable IPR options for future groups. Concern from the LC that these two items may affect one another, and therefore should be done in concert. Concern expressed on the BoT call that, while desireable to add simplicy to understanding the IPR agreements, in creating this sort of "abridged guide to picking IP" we could lose some of the importance of the legal intricacies (Necessary Claims, etc.) and incorrectly position the various IPR options. Agreement these two items should be separated. LC reps to take this discussion back to the LC and then return to the BoT with response. Bill suggested that he is willing to join LC in a discussion about this and also invite counsel to the conversation. 9. Interoperability Board nominations statusSummary: Lucy reported that Bob Morgan/I2 and University of WA has accepted the nomination to the IRB and additional nominations are forthcoming. MOTION: ISOC moved to accept Bob Morgan as a member of the IRB. Sun seconded. No discussion. No objection. Motion carried. 10. Workshop at RSA ConferenceSummary: Invitation for input regarding the workshop at next year's RSA Conference to make the event as compelling as possible. Please send feedback to Brett. Meeting was adjourned at 6:57 am PT. Next Meeting
|
Bookmarks
Is this site useful to you? Please share it! On This Page:
Pages in this Space:
|
Board of Trustees Minutes 2009-11-19
Labels:
None