IdCommons - User contributions [en]

2008 Q3 Report ID-Legal

2008-10-16T18:19:59Z

Judi: /* Successes */

=== Successes ===

The group had several informative conference calls to discuss how to develop conversations with the legal and policy-making community. We're working toward holding a gathering in the future.

Also (thanks Eugene and Jeff) we're in process of migrating our mailing list to new server, should complete migration in next few weeks.

=== Breakdowns ===

=== Requests ===

=== Announcements ===

Internet Identity Workshop is coming up!

Announcement
[http://www.windley.com/events/iiw2008b/announcement.shtml]

Registration
[http://www.windley.com/events/iiw2008b/register.shtml]

2008 Q3 Report ID-Legal

2008-10-16T18:18:01Z

Judi: /* Successes */

=== Successes ===

The group had several informative conference calls to discuss how to develop conversations with the legal and policy-making community. We're working toward holding a gathering in the future.

=== Breakdowns ===

=== Requests ===

=== Announcements ===

Internet Identity Workshop is coming up!

Announcement
[http://www.windley.com/events/iiw2008b/announcement.shtml]

Registration
[http://www.windley.com/events/iiw2008b/register.shtml]

2008 Q3 Report ID-Legal

2008-10-16T18:17:26Z

Judi: /* Announcements */

=== Successes ===

The group had several informative phone calls to discuss how to develop conversations with the legal and policy-making community. We're working toward holding a gathering in the future.

=== Breakdowns ===

=== Requests ===

=== Announcements ===

Internet Identity Workshop is coming up!

Announcement
[http://www.windley.com/events/iiw2008b/announcement.shtml]

Registration
[http://www.windley.com/events/iiw2008b/register.shtml]

2008 Q3 Report ID-Legal

2008-10-16T18:15:22Z

Judi: /* Successes */

Current events

2008-10-07T01:38:32Z

Judi: added November IIW conference link

[http://iiw.idcommons.net/ IIW '08b] is coming up in November

ID-Legal 10-06-08

2008-10-07T01:34:56Z

Judi:

== Agenda: ==

We need to figure out some key questions out to really move forward.

'''Is this going to be a co-educational event?'''

The legal community learning from technologists and technologists learning from the legal community.

We think the answer is yes - we need to check this

'''Then what kind of process would we use at the event.''' I would like at least 1/2 of it to use Open Space to facilitate deeper dialogue and understanding then typically provided.

'''Where are we going to have the event:'''
* Bay Area or DC Area all both potential locations that have
* Then after that what venue(s)

'''What dates for the event work:'''
* January - February but when in that time frame

'''Who do we want at the event:'''
* We have done some scoping on this but need to get clearer.
* We need to invite some more key people into our group like Mary Rundle and Jane Winn

Jeff Hodges is not able to be the steward right now for the group.
I am up for hearing who would like to volunteer for this role. It means you are on the board of Identity Commons, you review other groups to see if they are in alignment with the purpose and principles, help manage common assets. You need to be on the community/stewards mailing list & it is good to attend the once a month stewards call.

== Call Notes ==

Present: Daniel Perry, Judi Clark

Several problems with the above agenda. As posed, why would a lawyer want to join this conversation? Many (most?) are employed by companies who would likely oppose this conversation. Basic premise that e-signature laws and laws generally have created tension and frustration--true? to whom? Every state has e-signature legislation. Lawyers have acclimated to this. Not same as digital signature, which has to do with PKI and certificate, a different value proposition. Many court cases where contracts have e-signatures are upheld.

Better focus: 1) identify why we want to get lawyers involved, 2) outline/define what problem we are trying to solve (e.g., patent laws, free legal advice, etc.).

Suggest we have conference in Hawaii, seconded.

Technology is forward looking, law lags (not backward looking). Judges are naturally slower about technology than tech developers.

Premise: would be proper to educate: we're moving so far ahead, it would be good to bring lawyers along with us. Where do we go, how to accomplish this?

Models of conversations:
* http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/ IT Conversations with Phil Windley
* http://legaltalknetwork.com/ Lawyer to Lawyer talk with Robert Ambrogi

Daniel: encourage lawyers who are already tech- and identity-savvy to be interviewed on these shows. Exploit podcasting to generate buzz. Realistically, Jan-Feb time frame for an in-person conference isn't likely to happen. No familiarity developed with people, issues, conversations!

Would be useful to do interviews with lawyers to get their take on evolving tech. Interesting to lawyers, would generate a lot of buzz. Would also help technologists develop perspectives on where the law is now and how to position their work to co-evolve.

Also strong support for a specific track at [http://iiw.idcommons.net/Iiw2008b next IIW] (in November): suggest blocking off a track for specific legal-related discussions and speakers. (inside-tech/organizational lawyers to help organize this to ensure that conversations are relevant to legal field)

All of the people in this group (ID-Legal) have blogs. How about developing a badge or widget to cross-connect our community? opt-in mailing list for further discussion?

Friend of Daniel's, Stephen Mason, an attorney in UK, wrote a book on electronic signatures and law. Our conversation includes this topic, let's ask for experts to join us, write short blog posts that cover some of the issues we're talking about. See his website at http://www.stephenmason.eu/e-signatures/

ID-Legal 10-06-08

2008-10-07T00:41:06Z

Judi:

== Agenda: ==

We need to figure out some key questions out to really move forward.

'''Is this going to be a co-educational event?'''

The legal community learning from technologists and technologists learning from the legal community.

We think the answer is yes - we need to check this

'''Then what kind of process would we use at the event.''' I would like at least 1/2 of it to use Open Space to facilitate deeper dialogue and understanding then typically provided.

'''Where are we going to have the event:'''
* Bay Area or DC Area all both potential locations that have
* Then after that what venue(s)

'''What dates for the event work:'''
* January - February but when in that time frame

'''Who do we want at the event:'''
* We have done some scoping on this but need to get clearer.
* We need to invite some more key people into our group like Mary Rundle and Jane Winn

Jeff Hodges is not able to be the steward right now for the group.
I am up for hearing who would like to volunteer for this role. It means you are on the board of Identity Commons, you review other groups to see if they are in alignment with the purpose and principles, help manage common assets. You need to be on the community/stewards mailing list & it is good to attend the once a month stewards call.

== Call Notes ==

Present: Daniel Perry, Judi Clark

Several problems with the above agenda. As posed, why would a lawyer want to join this conversation? Many (most?) are employed by companies who would likely oppose this conversation. Basic premise that e-signature laws and laws generally have created tension and frustration--true? to whom? Every state has e-signature legislation. Lawyers have acclimated to this. Not same as digital signature, which has to do with PKI and certificate, a different value proposition. Many court cases where contracts have e-signatures are upheld.

Better focus: 1) identify why we want to get lawyers involved, 2) outline/define what problem we are trying to solve (e.g., patent laws, free legal advice, etc.).

Suggest we have conference in Hawaii, seconded.

Technology is forward looking, law lags (not backward looking). Judges are naturally slower about technology than tech developers.

Premise: would be proper to educate: we're moving so far ahead, it would be good to bring lawyers along with us. Where do we go, how to accomplish this?

Models of conversations:
* http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/ IT Conversations with Phil Windley
* http://legaltalknetwork.com/ Lawyer to Lawyer talk with Robert Ambroggi

Daniel: encourage lawyers who are already tech- and identity-savvy to be interviewed on these shows. Exploit podcasting to generate buzz. Realistically, Jan-Feb time frame for an in-person conference isn't likely to happen. No familiarity developed with people, issues, conversations!

Would be useful to do interviews with lawyers to get their take on evolving tech. Interesting to lawyers, would generate a lot of buzz. Would also help technologists develop perspectives on where the law is now and how to position their work to co-evolve.

Also strong support for a specific track at [http://iiw.idcommons.net/Iiw2008b next IIW] (in November): suggest blocking off a track for specific legal-related discussions and speakers. (inside-tech/organizational lawyers to help organize this to ensure that conversations are relevant to legal field)

All of the people in this group (ID-Legal) have blogs. How about developing a badge or widget to cross-connect our community? opt-in mailing list for further discussion?

Friend of Daniel's, Stephen Mason, an attorney in UK, wrote a book on electronic signatures and law. Our conversation includes this topic, let's ask for experts to join us, write short blog posts that cover some of the issues we're talking about. See his website at http://www.stephenmason.eu/e-signatures/

ID-Legal 10-06-08

2008-10-07T00:37:19Z

Judi: added notes from our call

== Agenda: ==

We need to figure out some key questions out to really move forward.

'''Is this going to be a co-educational event?'''

The legal community learning from technologists and technologists learning from the legal community.

We think the answer is yes - we need to check this

'''Then what kind of process would we use at the event.''' I would like at least 1/2 of it to use Open Space to facilitate deeper dialogue and understanding then typically provided.

'''Where are we going to have the event:'''
* Bay Area or DC Area all both potential locations that have
* Then after that what venue(s)

'''What dates for the event work:'''
* January - February but when in that time frame

'''Who do we want at the event:'''
* We have done some scoping on this but need to get clearer.
* We need to invite some more key people into our group like Mary Rundle and Jane Winn

Jeff Hodges is not able to be the steward right now for the group.
I am up for hearing who would like to volunteer for this role. It means you are on the board of Identity Commons, you review other groups to see if they are in alignment with the purpose and principles, help manage common assets. You need to be on the community/stewards mailing list & it is good to attend the once a month stewards call.

== Call Notes ==

Present: Daniel Perry, Judi Clark

Several problems with the above agenda. As posed, why would a lawyer want to join this conversation? Many (most?) are employed by companies who would likely oppose this conversation. Basic premise that e-signature laws and laws generally have created tension and frustration--true? to whom? Every state has e-signature legislation. Lawyers have acclimated to this. Not same as digital signature, which has to do with PKI and certificate, a different value proposition. Many court cases where contracts have e-signatures are upheld.

Better focus: 1) identify why we want to get lawyers involved, 2) outline/define what problem we are trying to solve (e.g., patent laws, free legal advice, etc.).

Suggest we have conference in Hawaii, seconded.

Technology is forward looking, law lags (not backward looking). Judges are naturally slower about technology than tech developers.

Premise: would be proper to educate: we're moving so far ahead, it would be good to bring lawyers along with us. Where do we go, how to accomplish this?

Models of conversations:
* http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/ IT Conversations with Phil Windley
* http://legaltalknetwork.com/ Lawyer to Lawyer talk with Robert Ambroggi

Daniel: encourage lawyers who are already tech- and identity-savvy to be interviewed on these shows. Exploit podcasting to generate buzz. Realistically, Jan-Feb time frame for an in-person conference isn't likely to happen. No familiarity developed with people, issues, conversations!

Would be useful to do interviews with lawyers to get their take on evolving tech. Interesting to lawyers, would generate a lot of buzz. Would also help technologists develop perspectives on where the law is now and how to position their work to co-evolve.

Also strong support for a specific track at next IIW (in November): suggest blocking off a track for specific legal-related discussions and speakers. (inside-tech/organizational lawyers to help organize this to ensure that conversations are relevant to legal field)

All of the people in this group (ID-Legal) have blogs. How about developing a badge or widget to cross-connect our community? opt-in mailing list for further discussion?

Friend of Daniel's, Stephen Mason, an attorney in UK, wrote a book on electronic signatures and law. Our conversation includes this topic, let's ask for experts to join us, write short blog posts that cover some of the issues we're talking about. See his website at http://www.stephenmason.eu/e-signatures/

ID-Legal 10-06-08

2008-10-07T00:10:48Z

Judi:

== Agenda: ==

We need to figure out some key questions out to really move forward.

'''Is this going to be a co-educational event?'''

The legal community learning from technologists and technologists learning from the legal community.

We think the answer is yes - we need to check this

'''Then what kind of process would we use at the event.''' I would like at least 1/2 of it to use Open Space to facilitate deeper dialogue and understanding then typically provided.

'''Where are we going to have the event:'''
* Bay Area or DC Area all both potential locations that have
* Then after that what venue(s)

'''What dates for the event work:'''
* January - February but when in that time frame

'''Who do we want at the event:'''
* We have done some scoping on this but need to get clearer.
* We need to invite some more key people into our group like Mary Rundle and Jane Winn

Jeff Hodges is not able to be the steward right now for the group.
I am up for hearing who would like to volunteer for this role. It means you are on the board of Identity Commons, you review other groups to see if they are in alignment with the purpose and principles, help manage common assets. You need to be on the community/stewards mailing list & it is good to attend the once a month stewards call.

== Call Notes ==

Present: Daniel Perry, Judi Clark

Problem with the above agenda. Basic premise that e-signature laws and laws generally have created tension and frustration. Every state has e-signature legislation. Lawyers have acclimated to this. Not same as digital signature--has to do with PKI and certificate, a different value proposition. Many cases where contracts have e-signatures are upheld. Better focus: 1) identify why to get lawyers involved, 2) what problem are you trying to solve (e.g., patent laws, free legal advice, etc.).

Suggest we have conference in Hawaii. Technology is forward looking, law lags. Judges are naturally slower about technology than tech developers.

Premise: would be proper to educate: we're moving so far ahead, would be good to bring lawyers along with us. Where do we go, how to accomplish this?

Models of conversations:
http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/
http://legaltalknetwork.com/ Lawyer to Lawyer with Robert Ambroggi

Daniel encourages lawyers who are already tech- and identity-savvy to be interviewed on these shows. Exploit podcasting to generate buzz! Realistically, Jan-Feb time frame for an in-person conference isn't likely to happen. No familiarity developed with people, issues, conversations!

Would be useful to do interviews with lawyers to get their take on evolving tech. Interesting to lawyers, would generate a lot of buzz. Would also help technologists develop perspectives on where the law is now and how to position their work to co-evolve.

Also strong support for next IIW: suggest blocking off a track for specific legal-related discussions and speakers. (inside-tech/organizational lawyers to organize this?)

All of the people in this group have blogs! How about developing a badge or widget to cross-connect community? opt-in mailing list for further discussion?

Friend of Daniel's, Stephen Mason, an attorney in UK, wrote a book on electronic signatures and law. Conversation includes this topic, let's ask for experts to join us in conversation, write short blog posts that cover some of the issues we're talking about. See his website at http://www.stephenmason.eu/e-signatures/

ID-Legal 10-06-08

2008-10-07T00:03:43Z

Judi:

== Agenda: ==

We need to figure out some key questions out to really move forward.

'''Is this going to be a co-educational event?'''

The legal community learning from technologists and technologists learning from the legal community.

We think the answer is yes - we need to check this

'''Then what kind of process would we use at the event.''' I would like at least 1/2 of it to use Open Space to facilitate deeper dialogue and understanding then typically provided.

'''Where are we going to have the event:'''
* Bay Area or DC Area all both potential locations that have
* Then after that what venue(s)

'''What dates for the event work:'''
* January - February but when in that time frame

'''Who do we want at the event:'''
* We have done some scoping on this but need to get clearer.
* We need to invite some more key people into our group like Mary Rundle and Jane Winn

Jeff Hodges is not able to be the steward right now for the group.
I am up for hearing who would like to volunteer for this role. It means you are on the board of Identity Commons, you review other groups to see if they are in alignment with the purpose and principles, help manage common assets. You need to be on the community/stewards mailing list & it is good to attend the once a month stewards call.

== Call Notes ==

Present: Daniel Perry, Judi Clark

Problem with the above agenda. Basic premise that e-signature laws and laws generally have created tension and frustration. Every state has e-signature legislation. Lawyers have acclimated to this. Not same as digital signature--has to do with PKI and certificate, a different value proposition. Many cases where contracts have e-signatures are upheld. Better focus: 1) identify why to get lawyers involved, 2) what problem are you trying to solve (e.g., patent laws, free legal advice, etc.).

Suggest we have conference in Hawaii. Technology is forward looking, law lags. Judges are naturally slower about technology than tech developers.

Premise: would be proper to educate: we're moving so far ahead, would be good to bring lawyers along with us. Where do we go, how to accomplish this?

Models of conversations:
http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/
http://legaltalknetwork.com/ Lawyer to Lawyer with Robert Abroggie

Daniel encourages lawyers who are already tech- and identity-savvy to be interviewed on these shows. Exploit podcasting to generate buzz! Realistically, Jan-Feb time frame for an in-person conference isn't likely to happen. No familiarity developed with people, issues, conversations!

Would be useful to do interviews with lawyers to get their take on evolving tech. Interesting to lawyers, would generate a lot of buzz. Would also help technologists develop perspectives on where the law is now and how to position their work to co-evolve.

Also strong support for next IIW: suggest blocking off a track for specific legal-related discussions and speakers. (inside-tech/organizational lawyers to organize this?)

ID-Legal 10-06-08

2008-10-06T23:55:42Z

Judi: notes from our phone call

User:Judi

2008-10-01T18:53:43Z

Judi: New page: Judi Clark Digital ID Coach http://digitalIDcoach.com

Judi Clark

Digital ID Coach [[http://digitalIDcoach.com]]

ID-Legal 10-06-08

2008-10-01T18:43:50Z

Judi:

Here is the call notes

== Agenda: ==

We need to figure out some key questions out to really move forward.

'''Is this going to be a co-educational event?'''

The legal community learning from technologists and technologists learning from the legal community.

We think the answer is yes - we need to check this

'''Then what kind of process would we use at the event.''' I would like at least 1/2 of it to use Open Space to facilitate deeper dialogue and understanding then typically provided.

'''Where are we going to have the event:'''
* Bay Area or DC Area all both potential locations that have
* Then after that what venue(s)

'''What dates for the event work:'''
* January - February but when in that time frame

'''Who do we want at the event:'''
* We have done some scoping on this but need to get clearer.
* We need to invite some more key people into our group like Mary Rundle and Jane Winn

Jeff Hodges is not able to be the steward right now for the group.
I am up for hearing who would like to volunteer for this role. It means you are on the board of Identity Commons, you review other groups to see if they are in alignment with the purpose and principles, help manage common assets. You need to be on the community/stewards mailing list & it is good to attend the once a month stewards call.

ID-Legal 08-28-08

2008-10-01T18:30:23Z

Judi:

=== Attendees ===

=== Agenda ===

* Review Charter Updates by Scott.
* IC Stewards Council Vote on our group is happening - participate on this list

Consider who we want to be a high level co-convener with this group for our event.
* What is our "ask" to them and how do we see collaboration working?
* who is going to approach them and how?

* Maybe we just ask a range of different entities to be "media sponsors" (they don't give us money but promote the event - send people etc).

* Event Design - what progress has been made on this - next steps?

* Fundraising - what do we need to solicity support

* Who do we need participating in this group to make this a success?
** Mary Rundle (recently hired at MSFT to do EULA's/IRA)

=== Post-Call Notes from Kaliya ===

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:18:38 -0700
From: Kaliya Hamlin <kaliya@mac.com>
Subject: [Legal-id] Charter - ConCall

Hi Everyone,

I hope summer is going well. I know it is really foggy and cold
here in Berkeley but I imagine that is not true for everyone else (I
dig get out of the Bay to Seattle and Vancouver and it was positively
hot there).

Last week I had a great chance to meet and talk with Scott David in
Seattle (a first meeting - he was introduced to me via e-mail by our
mutual friend Sheri 6 months ago). We had a good discussion that
included science and the arts related to identity.

I talked with Dazza today in person too - learned more about his
history working for the state of Mass. as a government lawyer on
identity issues. - interesting.

I am hopping this week to catch up with Rene, Judi and Lucy too.
So I am thinking that next week would be a good time for a next call.
How does Tuesday sound for folks?

I have put the changes that Scott worked on for the charter up on the
wiki. Feel free to look them over
[[http://wiki.idcommons.net/ID-Legal_Charter]]

Here is the current outline of the event as Bob wrote it
[[http://wiki.idcommons.net/ID-Legal]]

We need to figure out who (or which institution) - if anyone we want
to go and ask to co-convene or perhaps the right phrasing is sponsor.

I will ask again about CHM avalability - but maybe we want to put it
in a school before school starts in the new year.

Regards,
=Kaliya

ps. I know that folks are overwhelmed with stuff 'to do' - after
working on IIW and Kids Online this is one of the key events that I
am focused on for the year - I have a lot of energy to work on making
it happen - I just don't want to do it in a vacum and without good co-
inviters/ hosts.

Kaliya - Planetwork Network Director
kaliya@mac.com
network@planetwork.net

ID-Legal 08-28-08

2008-10-01T18:25:59Z

Judi:

=== Attendees ===

=== Agenda ===

* Review Charter Updates by Scott.
* IC Stewards Council Vote on our group is happening - participate on this list

Consider who we want to be a high level co-convener with this group for our event.
* What is our "ask" to them and how do we see collaboration working?
* who is going to approach them and how?

* Maybe we just ask a range of different entities to be "media sponsors" (they don't give us money but promote the event - send people etc).

* Event Design - what progress has been made on this - next steps?

* Fundraising - what do we need to solicity support

* Who do we need participating in this group to make this a success?
** Mary Rundle (recently hired at MSFT to do EULA's/IRA)

=== Post-Call Notes from Kaliya ===

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:18:38 -0700
From: Kaliya Hamlin <kaliya@mac.com>
Subject: [Legal-id] Charter - ConCall

Hi Everyone,

I hope summer is going well. I know it is really foggy and cold
here in Berkeley but I imagine that is not true for everyone else (I
dig get out of the Bay to Seattle and Vancouver and it was positively
hot there).

Last week I had a great chance to meet and talk with Scott David in
Seattle (a first meeting - he was introduced to me via e-mail by our
mutual friend Sheri 6 months ago). We had a good discussion that
included science and the arts related to identity.

I talked with Dazza today in person too - learned more about his
history working for the state of Mass. as a government lawyer on
identity issues. - interesting.

I am hopping this week to catch up with Rene, Judi and Lucy too.
So I am thinking that next week would be a good time for a next call.
How does Tuesday sound for folks?

I have put the changes that Scott worked on for the charter up on the
wiki. Feel free to look them over
http://wiki.idcommons.net/ID-Legal_Charter

Here is the current outline of the event as Bob wrote it
http://wiki.idcommons.net/ID-Legal

We need to figure out who (or which institution) - if anyone we want
to go and ask to co-convene or perhaps the right phrasing is sponsor.

I will ask again about CHM avalability - but maybe we want to put it
in a school before school starts in the new year.

Regards,
=Kaliya

ps. I know that folks are overwhelmed with stuff 'to do' - after
working on IIW and Kids Online this is one of the key events that I
am focused on for the year - I have a lot of energy to work on making
it happen - I just don't want to do it in a vacum and without good co-
inviters/ hosts.

Kaliya - Planetwork Network Director
kaliya@mac.com
network@planetwork.net

Stewards Council Telecon: 2008 October 1

2008-10-01T17:00:52Z

Judi:

tewards Council Telecon: 2008 October 1 - call to start at 9:15 PT, 12:15 ET
From IdCommons
Jump to: navigation, search

Call in number: 1-605-475-4333 access code: 181783

[edit] Attending

*Christopher H. Reynolds
*Dale Olds
*Mary Ruddy
*Charles Andres
*Eugene Kim
*Kaliya
*Lucy
*Chris A.
*Judi
*Dan Perry
*David R.

[edit] Agenda

Review of agenda

Volunteer to take notes

Updates on action items from last call

1. DAN Proposal on use of card to access PayPal account.
2. MARY to update charter process http://wiki.idcommons.net/Starting_Working_Groups
3. MARY to update on service providers

Vote(s) in process.

1. Changing Working Groups to Action Groups.
2. Chair of the Stewards Council

New Items

1. Stewards council quorum
2. New groups planning conferences
3. Update on IDTBD meetings and V2 proposal, current recommendation (MARY, KALIYA, DRUMMOND)and recommendation. [[IDTBD Summary]]

[edit] Notes of Call

Eugene two votes, neither got a quorum. In order for a vote to succeed, need a quoru, Currently have 18 stewards, so 10 people must vote. So I as the active chair.

Chris - wasn't sure that he could vote.

Eugene - Discussion occrured before new stewards were added, but vote was afterwards.

Dan - That is correct, He could have and should have voted.

Charles - I'm in the same boat. I didn't know that the vote called.

Eugene - lookig ino other toosl. I'm going to send a revote out... and i will email all the steards individually.

Judi - I had a questoi nabout alernate. I'm an alternate, should i be vottin?
Eugeu - ALternates only vote if there are designated as the steward (
Dan- It't not that you can't vote, it just hat your vote won;t cound, itf the main steward votes.. SO go ahead and cast vote,m and we will determine if they coudn
Dugee - It ould help idf specify thaty are voting as main steare or alternate
Euguere - will do a revote on chari. NOt on action grou fofr two reason. 1) less people votes on hta ction grou than the chair group. Maybel abstined because they didn't feel strongly about it.

I would sugest we try ot get avoitn
Tell peoplt ot ab stin if that i

Euguer.table this to the idtbd discussion.. There may be better proosasles to the action gorup concetp...
Dan - I support that revote on chair and letting the other go for the itme being..

Mary - We just need to tell who and how many. Paypal chaeges a service fee, but some may need access for some function.

Kaliya - There is also the issue of getting the addressed changed.

Dan- I thought it was. Will double check.
Eugeu - let me address that, HTat way my action item not yerous. Dan set it up and got it verified. It was my action item to add the additonal addrees. I did it this mrointing, but there is an email alias problem and I need to circle back with Fen..That should be cleared oup today. can use to receive monye and to migrate gthe mailing list over to electirc embers...

Dan - while we were on the topic.. Have already clearned htat with the state of Florisa..

Charis - if we had a aqueormof steruward on a call can we take actin. No our bylawy reuire us to vogte electornincly so that there is an email trial of the rvoeitrs...

Judi - quick aqur jabout altenrt. Am I now the steward?

Judi - am I on the main mailing list..

Kaliya to work in this off lien..

Mary - Charter changes

Mary - outsources

Charles - 19 other non profitst taht they manage. They provide a wide variety of services. incluing runing worign gorups and websites and tickelrs.. Most of theri cuswtoemrs are one customer has 50 working groups and 700 menbers... I'm not at the point of discussing proce with them.

David - you should talk with BIll Wshburn as well. As

Chris - I want to send out another emal to settle on a date and I want to push to settle on a date...It would be nice if we had some news to report at IIW.

Kaliya - Following IIW on november 13 is kids on line an unconference. Goal is to have a better set of best practices for the industry itself. So please let folk. still re

IDleagal workign on a co-educational event with lawyers and technologies to have better cocordinateing with

Judi - who in ID-legal?

Kaliay - nex monday is the next conferenc clal.

Judi, then I'm really not on hte mailing list.

Kaliya - Last month was last meeting.

CHris - wehre?

Kaliay - location not set yet.

Chris if it could be coordianted with RSA< that mighe be suerl

Charle - its lateer

IDTBD

Eugene - I was following up to Bob's email

David - Goal is converge3nve and increased collaboratoin. ONe path is do we focus on how to collaborate and then see what organizational strucure we have or other way
Charles - I agree. I was at the burlington meeting.

Potential Partners

2008-07-17T18:01:16Z

Judi:

As requested in our previous call, if you have any contacts or
suggestions for people/companies who should be included in our events,
please list a name or company. Here's our preliminary list of participants
to invite:
http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/ID-Legal#WHO

Here's a list we've compiled of Identity companies:
http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/Identity_Companies

and a related outside list:
http://identityaccessmanagement.blogspot.com/2005/05/vendor-list.html

=== Conveners ===

An important question is: what do we want out of a convener, and what do we think they can get out of it?

We want someone who can contribute an appropriate physical space, including network infrastructure and reconfigurable seating.

A convener will probably be someone who has an interest in the topic area (so for example, a Law school which wants to expose its students to this kind of material, or a commercial enterprise which wants to participate for purposes of strategic planning, or a foundation which has this as part of its charter).

Judi notes that USACM is interested in this topic and might be willing to be a convener.

User groups or large technology vendors are also potential sponsors

=== Invitees ===

ID-Legal 07-18-08

2008-07-17T17:28:39Z

Judi: removed updated call in number (private)

10 AM PDT - 1PM EDT

== Agenda ==
1) Goals/Framing of event - [[Bob's new draft]]

2) Potential Partners - prioritize and committments to contact about opportunity

3) Venue/Date options - clarity on this need - how to gather information

4) Patrick on Revenue Plan

5) Invitation/Promotion strategy - Kaliya and Patrick
* One EVENT - or series? what is the strategy - peoples thoughts?

6) [http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/ID-Legal_Charter Chater Review]

7) [http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/ID-Legal_07-08-08 Other action items from last call].
* Kaliya, Lucy and Daza on Process

ID-Legal 07-18-08

2008-07-17T17:27:27Z

Judi: updated call in number

10 AM PDT - 1PM EDT

UPDATED Dial in number: 1 866-471-9628
passcode: 51 26 57 07 68

== Agenda ==
1) Goals/Framing of event - [[Bob's new draft]]

2) Potential Partners - prioritize and committments to contact about opportunity

3) Venue/Date options - clarity on this need - how to gather information

4) Patrick on Revenue Plan

5) Invitation/Promotion strategy - Kaliya and Patrick
* One EVENT - or series? what is the strategy - peoples thoughts?

6) [http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/ID-Legal_Charter Chater Review]

7) [http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/ID-Legal_07-08-08 Other action items from last call].
* Kaliya, Lucy and Daza on Process

2008 Q2 Report Id Futures

2008-07-11T17:03:53Z

Judi: /* Successes */

=== Successes ===

* Group formed, one discussion held on developing plans for creating scenarios

=== Breakdowns ===

=== Requests ===

=== Announcements ===

2008 Q2 Report ID-Legal

2008-07-11T16:53:38Z

Judi: /* Successes */

=== Successes ===

* Group newly formed, two discussions held (on goals, who should be part of future discussions)

=== Breakdowns ===

=== Requests ===

=== Announcements ===

2008 Q2 Report ID-Legal

2008-07-11T16:53:02Z

Judi: /* Announcements */

=== Successes ===

=== Breakdowns ===

=== Requests ===

=== Announcements ===

2008 Q2 Report ID-Legal

2008-07-11T16:52:37Z

Judi: /* Announcements */

=== Successes ===

=== Breakdowns ===

=== Requests ===

=== Announcements ===

* Group formed, two discussions held (on goals, who should be part of our discussions)

ID-Legal 07-08-08

2008-07-09T03:47:21Z

Judi: /* Scotts notes: */

== Call Action ITEMS ==
'''''Next call July 17th Thursday at 10 PDT'''''

'''Bob:''' Next Draft of Outline/articulation of project

'''All:''' Send Judy relevent contacts you have in this space so we identify gaps

'''Soctt/Kaliya:''' Next Draft of Charter

'''Paddy/Judi:''' Add some more depth to the existing who list (including adding what we talked about today)

'''Scott:''' List of compiling ABA CyberLaw meetings in the fall.

'''Scott:''' finding more information on mental civil rights

'''Paddy:''' Coming up with ideas on how we make $ to fund this effort

'''Paddy/Kaliya:''' Invitation and Promotion strategy

'''Kaliya with Lucy and Daza:''' Process development

Some of these should have some attention paid before the next call -
* phone call to discuss and get initial outline
* wiki draft of some more information
* conversation on mailing list

Not talked about but should be on mailing list and next call is potential partner organizations to do this convening

If people are interested in Scenario planning work - ping Kaliya and Judi (more to be posted about this on the list shortly)

'''Kaliya:''' Do a pre-call call with Bob to outline agenda of next call.

== Call Summary ==

The conversation got rich at the end diving into the link between
* Contracts and Protocols and Spac's
* Code is Law and Law is Code/Protocol

The nature of the legal profession to look back at precident rather then forward in to the future

Using things lawyers know like Fact Patterns in the emerging space to do Mock Trials and Run Moot Court on potential future case.

Lookign at the case landscape - need to do.

''''''Relevenat Technologies of Tomorrow'''''' was a phrase that came up along with the fact that the form we are choosing is organized loosely enough to enable us to do more. ''(side comment from Kaliya: Yeah! for the IC form and practices)''

During the''' Fall''' we should go to some of the '''Legal Conferences''' in this area (Scott is getting a list of them togehter) and promote/invite people to our event.

'''Regional Pre-work''' small focused topics came up. The Process group will think about this and how it can flow along with online pre-gathering of information and people.

'''Potential Alternative Language''' for 'user-centric identity' is "online identity"

'''Case's that or could be upcoming example:'''
* woman sued on fellany charges for false ID use by an adult for bullying child who killed themselves
* More should be done to find these as prep for the event

We talked about being '''involved''' with the '''ID Futures group''' more - Kaliya will most more about their activities to mailing list.

'''Barriers to Entry for the conference''' - having people who are/want to come write position papers.

'''Charter Conversation:'''
Process matters - leaning towards the group not itself putting out positions but more creating the space for people to find each other and potentially develop/output such things.

Also include reference to consumer groups and management in companies as part of who should be in conversation. - Kaliya and Scott will take this input and improve.

'''Additional Who's'''
* American legislative exchange council,
* NCSL,
* Governors association (NGA).
* Joe Aladeff
* NCCUSL – They have taken a pass on state law things.
* NSF – science and technology and law (Kaliya will inquire more about)
* ITU framework (the prime Life).
* EPIC

== Scotts notes:==

Scott comments that maybe should be more multilateral in terms of views. Not just tech and law, but managers, consumer groups etc.

Jeff H:

Kaliya: In purpose, question of naming events and scenarios. Maybe say that proactive and forward looking, instead of naming what we doing.

Dashel: tighter definitions will be helpful. From a lawyer perspective, difference of those groups that could put together rule, etc. and those that are a safe place. Notes from last call, seems this group is going toward a sharing of ideas, not proposals.

Kaliya – Yes. That is fair.

Dashel: that suggests that good principles. Make it more explicit, so that folks are clear that a safe place.

It is hard, because do have a point of view. We are associated with user centric identity.

Dashel: issue is whether policy will be suggested that contrary to .

Scott: Process to turn the open process into a position might help define outcomes. Divide “safe place” conversations from positions and allow folks to decide whether to put their names on the positions.

Other: Won’t there be a conflict as get specific with the large funders.

Lucy: Tension of recognizing local problem in a global context.

Kaliya: Someone said, when is identity commons going to do something. It is creating space for discussion and this is doing something. Only position is that it is pro-user centric identity.

Jeff H: Use the notion of “online identity.” There are real societal impact to technology. Hadn’t thought further than that. The lawyers that we are aware of, aren’t showing up at IIW.

New topic: Did Bob put together a draft description of the event. If have comments, please add them. Bob is working on them.

New topic: Subject of the today’s call is the Whos

Patrick: Haven’t gotten to that.

Judi: did a quick reorg, but nothing fancy. Wiki.id-legal.net. Nicely organized now.

Kaliya: we should see if have missed any categories. Civil societies like EPIC.

Judi: they publish a annual list.

Dashel: NCCUSL – They have taken a pass on state law things. They are real players. They looking at what law should be.

Kaliya: NSF – science and technology person.

Scott: Non-US folks?

ITU framework (the prime project).

Kaliya: where go look to find the whos in the orgs.

Dasa: Joe Aladeff seems to know folks in this field. Knows who is relevant.
Also chambers of commerce, national and international. They look at international law from perspective of private international law.

Kaliya: one issue that have is how do we see going from a list that is broad to one that is narrow.

Judi: Looks for interesting people at conferences, where have identity issues covered. There are a number of folks from there. Folks have published papers, etc. Start with existing conferences.

Kaliya: We don’t have a list of conferences that exist. Are there others that we should point folks to.

Lucy: are we looking for speakers and attendees, or dynamic roundtable on the issues.

Kaliya: more like roundtable, but there will be open space. Cannot imagine an event that is larger

Scott: Blog leading to the conference idea:

Kaliya: we do this already.

Judi: Could call for position papers ahead of time.

Kaliya: That is a good barrier to entry. Get’s folks invested ahead of time.

Daza: can use those points together. If 150 people put in statement. Could have organized blog and then have “town meeting” type discussion. Big dialog.com might work here. Bubble up issues. Can organize ideas and funnel down to topics of most interest.

Kaliya: need to focus on pre-event idea sharing. That seems to work. Group of folks need to work with Kaliya on event design. How many days, invitations, description of what doing and who is coming.

Kaliya: What about having small regional prework around this. What about this. What are pockets of focus.

Dasel: There are big conferences of lawyers. Could add on to lawyer’s meetings where cyber law and security committee are meeting at the same time. Do a symposium at one of them.

Upcoming cyber law conferences, where are they listed. Can write down and put in e-mail list what they are.

Need to know names and committees to contact them.

Kaliya: Where are lawyers gathering in the fall so that can have folks there to say who we are. Identifying places to be in the fall.

Scott will do the ABA sessions

Back to the WHO – American legislative exchange council, NCSL, Governors association (NGA).

Kaliya – will ping EPIC.

Judy – what need to expand this list. Would be helpful to have people’s contacts. Who do we know who should be invited. Who you are and who to contact. Send out a call for participation. Who should be at the table.

Some sleeve tugging has occurred.

Relevant technologies of tomorrow.

Scott: lawyers look at precedent

Dasel: lawyers good at scenarios. Fact patterns give folks lots to talk about. Mock trials will engage them. This will sharpen attention.

Law is code and code is law. Statutes and laws and tech feed into and from law. The feedback will result in protocols.

Pat Riley: how will we get lawyers to the event, is that what talking about?
Lawyers are terrible at business development. If they think can get clients, they will come.

When inviting non lawyers, invite them to give scenarios. Lawyers can address.

Emerging legal risks. High ticket event.

Judi: Future of the Internet[http://manymedia.com/futures/scenarios/] paper she did in law school was a scenario paper. This is ripe for a good analogy.

Dasel: scenario would be good to see.

Kaliya: group in ID commons is scenario group. Have a proposal that circulating around. Would be great to get feedback on that. We want to do community wide scenario planning, want to see what need for potential futures. See what has the most potential.

Dasa: Hereby volunteer for health care sector scenarios.

Kaliya: want to have a call regarding process.

Lucy: will help with that.

Dasa: will help with tech. Bigdialog.com. User name: test password

Pat Riley: is there room for promotions and revenue generator. How we make money, revenue: IAW. Other seminars

Scott: should the organization be a 501(c)(3)?

Judi: If anyone wants to be involved in scenario planning, please contact her (loose.canon (at) gmail (dot) com). If have anyone that should be in the dialog, please send those to Judi.

Kaliya: not contact them yet. Just names so that recognize the folks involved.

Pat raised the promotion and revenue generation. Anyone else interested in that? No responses.

Bob will do a draft.

Any other volunteers to take on things.

When have next call? Next Thursday, July 17. 10am pacific time.

== Attendees ==

Kaliya
Patrick Reilly
Judi
Lucy
Scott
Mary Ruddy
Daza
Mila?

ID-Legal 07-08-08

2008-07-09T02:34:26Z

Judi: /* Scotts notes: */

== Call Action ITEMS ==
'''''Next call July 17th Thursday at 10 PDT'''''

'''Bob:''' Next Draft of Outline/articulation of project

'''All:''' Send Judy relevent contacts you have in this space so we identify gaps

'''Soctt/Kaliya:''' Next Draft of Charter

'''Paddy/Judi:''' Add some more depth to the existing who list (including adding what we talked about today)

'''Scott:''' List of compiling ABA CyberLaw meetings in the fall.

'''Scott:''' finding more information on mental civil rights

'''Paddy:''' Coming up with ideas on how we make $ to fund this effort

'''Paddy/Kaliya:''' Invitation and Promotion strategy

'''Kaliya with Lucy and Daza:''' Process development

Some of these should have some attention paid before the next call -
* phone call to discuss and get initial outline
* wiki draft of some more information
* conversation on mailing list

Not talked about but should be on mailing list and next call is potential partner organizations to do this convening

If people are interested in Scenario planning work - ping Kaliya and Judi (more to be posted about this on the list shortly)

'''Kaliya:''' Do a pre-call call with Bob to outline agenda of next call.

== Call Summary ==

The conversation got rich at the end diving into the link between
* Contracts and Protocols and Spac's
* Code is Law and Law is Code/Protocol

The nature of the legal profession to look back at precident rather then forward in to the future

Using things lawyers know like Fact Patterns in the emerging space to do Mock Trials and Run Moot Court on potential future case.

Lookign at the case landscape - need to do.

''''''Relevenat Technologies of Tomorrow'''''' was a phrase that came up along with the fact that the form we are choosing is organized loosely enough to enable us to do more. ''(side comment from Kaliya: Yeah! for the IC form and practices)''

During the''' Fall''' we should go to some of the '''Legal Conferences''' in this area (Scott is getting a list of them togehter) and promote/invite people to our event.

'''Regional Pre-work''' small focused topics came up. The Process group will think about this and how it can flow along with online pre-gathering of information and people.

'''Potential Alternative Language''' for 'user-centric identity' is "online identity"

'''Case's that or could be upcoming example:'''
* woman sued on fellany charges for false ID use by an adult for bullying child who killed themselves
* More should be done to find these as prep for the event

We talked about being '''involved''' with the '''ID Futures group''' more - Kaliya will most more about their activities to mailing list.

'''Barriers to Entry for the conference''' - having people who are/want to come write position papers.

'''Charter Conversation:'''
Process matters - leaning towards the group not itself putting out positions but more creating the space for people to find each other and potentially develop/output such things.

Also include reference to consumer groups and management in companies as part of who should be in conversation. - Kaliya and Scott will take this input and improve.

'''Additional Who's'''
* American legislative exchange council,
* NCSL,
* Governors association (NGA).
* Joe Aladeff
* NCCUSL – They have taken a pass on state law things.
* NSF – science and technology and law (Kaliya will inquire more about)
* ITU framework (the prime Life).
* EPIC

== Scotts notes:==

Scott comments that maybe should be more multilateral in terms of views. Not just tech and law, but managers, consumer groups etc.

Jeff H:

Kaliya: In purpose, question of naming events and scenarios. Maybe say that proactive and forward looking, instead of naming what we doing.

Dashel: tighter definitions will be helpful. From a lawyer perspective, difference of those groups that could put together rule, etc. and those that are a safe place. Notes from last call, seems this group is going toward a sharing of ideas, not proposals.

Kaliya – Yes. That is fair.

Dashel: that suggests that good principles. Make it more explicit, so that folks are clear that a safe place.

It is hard, because do have a point of view. We are associated with user centric identity.

Dashel: issue is whether policy will be suggested that contrary to .

Scott: Process to turn the open process into a position might help define outcomes. Divide “safe place” conversations from positions and allow folks to decide whether to put their names on the positions.

Other: Won’t there be a conflict as get specific with the large funders.

Lucy: Tension of recognizing local problem in a global context.

Kaliya: Someone said, when is identity commons going to do something. It is creating space for discussion and this is doing something. Only position is that it is pro-user centric identity.

Jeff H: Use the notion of “online identity.” There are real societal impact to technology. Hadn’t thought further than that. The lawyers that we are aware of, aren’t showing up at IIW.

New topic: Did Bob put together a draft description of the event. If have comments, please add them. Bob is working on them.

New topic: Subject of the today’s call is the Whos

Patrick: Haven’t gotten to that.

Judi: did a quick reorg, but nothing fancy. Wiki.id-legal.net. Nicely organized now.

Kaliya: we should see if have missed any categories. Civil societies like EPIC.

Judi: they publish a annual list.

Dashel: NCCUSL – They have taken a pass on state law things. They are real players. They looking at what law should be.

Kaliya: NSF – science and technology person.

Scott: Non-US folks?

ITU framework (the prime project).

Kaliya: where go look to find the whos in the orgs.

Dasa: Joe Aladeff seems to know folks in this field. Knows who is relevant.
Also chambers of commerce, national and international. They look at international law from perspective of private international law.

Kaliya: one issue that have is how do we see going from a list that is broad to one that is narrow.

Judi: Looks for interesting people at conferences, where have identity issues covered. There are a number of folks from there. Folks have published papers, etc. Start with existing conferences.

Kaliya: We don’t have a list of conferences that exist. Are there others that we should point folks to.

Lucy: are we looking for speakers and attendees, or dynamic roundtable on the issues.

Kaliya: more like roundtable, but there will be open space. Cannot imagine an event that is larger

Scott: Blog leading to the conference idea:

Kaliya: we do this already.

Judi: Could call for position papers ahead of time.

Kaliya: That is a good barrier to entry. Get’s folks invested ahead of time.

Daza: can use those points together. If 150 people put in statement. Could have organized blog and then have “town meeting” type discussion. Big dialog.com might work here. Bubble up issues. Can organize ideas and funnel down to topics of most interest.

Kaliya: need to focus on pre-event idea sharing. That seems to work. Group of folks need to work with Kaliya on event design. How many days, invitations, description of what doing and who is coming.

Kaliya: What about having small regional prework around this. What about this. What are pockets of focus.

Dasel: There are big conferences of lawyers. Could add on to lawyer’s meetings where cyber law and security committee are meeting at the same time. Do a symposium at one of them.

Upcoming cyber law conferences, where are they listed. Can write down and put in e-mail list what they are.

Need to know names and committees to contact them.

Kaliya: Where are lawyers gathering in the fall so that can have folks there to say who we are. Identifying places to be in the fall.

Scott will do the ABA sessions

Back to the WHO – American legislative exchange council, NCSL, Governors association (NGA).

Kaliya – will ping EPIC.

Judy – what need to expand this list. Would be helpful to have people’s contacts. Who do we know who should be invited. Who you are and who to contact. Send out a call for participation. Who should be at the table.

Some sleeve tugging has occurred.

Relevant technologies of tomorrow.

Scott: lawyers look at precedent

Dasel: lawyers good at scenarios. Fact patterns give folks lots to talk about. Mock trials will engage them. This will sharpen attention.

Law is code and code is law. Statutes and laws and tech feed into and from law. The feedback will result in protocols.

Pat Riley: how will we get lawyers to the event, is that what talking about?
Lawyers are terrible at business development. If they think can get clients, they will come.

When inviting non lawyers, invite them to give scenarios. Lawyers can address.

Emerging legal risks. High ticket event.

Judi: Future of the internet paper she did was a scenario paper. This is ripe for a good analogy.

Dasel: scenario would be good to see.

Kaliya: group in ID commons is scenario group. Have a proposal that circulating around. Would be great to get feedback on that. We want to do community wide scenario planning, want to see what need for potential futures. See what has the most potential.

Dasa: Hereby volunteer for health care sector scenarios.

Kaliya: want to have a call regarding process.

Lucy: will help with that.

Dasa: will help with tech. Bigdialog.com. User name: test password

Pat Riley: is there room for promotions and revenue generator. How we make money, revenue: IAW. Other seminars

Scott: should the organization be a 501(c)(3)?

Judi: If anyone wants to be involved in scenario planning, please contact her [loose.canon (at) gmail (dot) com]. If have anyone that should be in the dialog, please send those to Judi.

Kaliya: not contact them yet. Just names so that recognize the folks involved.

Pat raised the promotion and revenue generation. Anyone else interested in that? No responses.

Bob will do a draft.

Any other volunteers to take on things.

When have next call? Next Thursday, July 17. 10am pacific time.

== Attendees ==

Kaliya
Patrick Reilly
Judi
Lucy
Scott
Mary Ruddy
Daza
Mila?

ID-Legal

2008-07-08T17:50:27Z

Judi: /* WHO */

=== NEXT CALLS ===

Call details:

* Tue 07/01/08 10:00 AM - IIW Legal: Setting Goals, Review Draft Description [[ID-Legal 07-01-08 Call]]
* Tue 07/08/08 10:00 AM - IIW Legal: People and Groups [[ID-Legal 07-08-08]]

Dial in number: 1-309-946-5100
Access code: 44241

=== Draft Event Description ===

There is a lack of cross pollination between the legal community and technical community innovating digital identity systems.

* laws not in sync with technology - creating friction (e-signature)
* Tech comes out disruptive and the law doesn't know how to deal - causing evolution
* New Laws coming out - creating uncertainty back into technology markets.

We need to create a space for collaboration to understand
* what does the law really think 'an identity is' (depends on context: Homeland Security/travel vs financial vs criminal?)
* what do technologist mean when they use language describing identity and the technology they are building.

"THE LAW" needs to needs to evolve Solove's thesis the law needs to carefully evolve to handle notions of reputations and identity in the online world.

Individuals and Businesses have a joint interest in an identity system that allocates risk and rewards in a socially optimal way.

An example where this kind of early collaboration would have been helpful is the PKI
''this can be written into a better paragraph''
Technologists take things at face value
* previous wave of badness (post PKC) digital signature ( wouldn't it be cool if we could use them instead of paper ones)
* never bothered to ask what a 'signature' was from the point of view of the law - shape of the ink on the paper - performance of the act - intention to commit oneself to the contract

'''In the end Techies and Lawyers must make this whole environment that normal people can live in - they have not been talking to each other re: the problems let alone working better together to help regular people.'''

=== WHO ===

* '''Governmental entitles (fed, state, local, courts) & politicians'''
** DHS (Homeland Security) - some good folks
** Lawyers and staff for decision makers and the law (in congress, governors and state level), Barak and MaCain staff
** Commerce Committee
** NSA (Stewart Baker)
** Law Enforcement
** NCCUSL (Nat'l Conf Commission on Unified State Laws)
** NCSL (Nat'l Conf State Legislators)
** ALEC (Amer Legis Exchange Council)

* '''Business and Corporate interests'''
** MySpace, Facebook
** Google, Yahoo, etc.
** Intel

* '''Universities, professors who have published papers, and law clinics'''
** Solove
** Susan Crawford
** Michael Froomkin - U Florida
** Beth Novak
** Holly Tolle and Ray (?)

* '''Consumer interest groups'''
** Consumer's Union
** National Consumer Law Center
** Privacy Coalition people
** EPIC

* '''Professional associations'''
** State and National Bar Assocs
*** CyberLaw Committees of Bar Associations - and chairs
** ACM
** IEEE
** Private Investigator Lobbying groups

* '''Related interests'''
** 22y olds - interesting Big learning curve
** Direct Marketing Assn.
** US Chamber of Commerce

* '''International Interests'''
** Prime Project? (part of 7th framework, ITU)
** Cisco & Joe Aledef (also International)
** International Chamber of Commerce

* '''RELEVANT Conferences'''
** IIW
** CFP
** (others from call?)

Eventually is Quick - in terms of going internationally

International Businesses are already that way.

* Entities from economic side are already dealing with it.

By Proxy - UN folks from different initiatives, those thinking about the entire world - surrogate.

=== Institutional Co-Conveners? ===

* MIT Media Lab - called for a dialogue about id bill of rights
* Careful of Gov. conveners - restrictions
* Common scaffolding - survey type thing - set of protocols. Blind men examining the elephant - handiness
** Different Languages coming together
** Framework for them to invite a variety - more useful
* Berkman
* UN?
* OECD - many initiatives going on

=== For Further Reading ===

Here are some pointers to papers on legal aspects of online identity that =JeffH has collected:

[http://iiw.idcommons.net/index.php/Bibliography:_Legal_Aspects_of_Online_Identity Bibliography: Legal Aspects of Online Identity]

ID-Legal

2008-07-08T17:44:47Z

Judi: /* WHO */

=== NEXT CALLS ===

Call details:

* Tue 07/01/08 10:00 AM - IIW Legal: Setting Goals, Review Draft Description [[ID-Legal 07-01-08 Call]]
* Tue 07/08/08 10:00 AM - IIW Legal: People and Groups [[ID-Legal 07-08-08]]

Dial in number: 1-309-946-5100
Access code: 44241

=== Draft Event Description ===

There is a lack of cross pollination between the legal community and technical community innovating digital identity systems.

* laws not in sync with technology - creating friction (e-signature)
* Tech comes out disruptive and the law doesn't know how to deal - causing evolution
* New Laws coming out - creating uncertainty back into technology markets.

We need to create a space for collaboration to understand
* what does the law really think 'an identity is' (depends on context: Homeland Security/travel vs financial vs criminal?)
* what do technologist mean when they use language describing identity and the technology they are building.

"THE LAW" needs to needs to evolve Solove's thesis the law needs to carefully evolve to handle notions of reputations and identity in the online world.

Individuals and Businesses have a joint interest in an identity system that allocates risk and rewards in a socially optimal way.

An example where this kind of early collaboration would have been helpful is the PKI
''this can be written into a better paragraph''
Technologists take things at face value
* previous wave of badness (post PKC) digital signature ( wouldn't it be cool if we could use them instead of paper ones)
* never bothered to ask what a 'signature' was from the point of view of the law - shape of the ink on the paper - performance of the act - intention to commit oneself to the contract

'''In the end Techies and Lawyers must make this whole environment that normal people can live in - they have not been talking to each other re: the problems let alone working better together to help regular people.'''

=== WHO ===

* '''Governmental entitles (fed, state, local, courts) & politicians'''
** DHS (Homeland Security) - some good folks
** Lawyers and staff for decision makers and the law (in congress, governors and state level), Barak and MaCain staff
** Commerce Committee
** NSA (Stewart Baker)
** Law Enforcement
** NCCUSL (Nat'l Conf Commission on Unified State Laws)

* '''Business and Corporate interests'''
** MySpace, Facebook
** Google, Yahoo, etc.
** Intel

* '''Universities, professors who have published papers, and law clinics'''
** Solove
** Susan Crawford
** Michael Froomkin - U Florida
** Beth Novak

* '''Consumer interest groups'''
** Consumer's Union
** National Consumer Law Center
** Privacy Coalition people
** EPIC

* '''Professional associations'''
** State and National Bar Assocs
*** CyberLaw Committees of Bar Associations - and chairs
** ACM
** IEEE
** Private Investigator Lobbying groups

* '''Related interests'''
** 22y olds - interesting Big learning curve
** Direct Marketing Assn.
** US Chamber of Commerce

* '''International Interests'''
** Prime Project? (part of 7th framework, ITU)
** Cisco & Joe Aledef (also International)
** International Chamber of Commerce

* '''RELEVANT Conferences'''
** IIW
** CFP
** (others from call?)

Eventually is Quick - in terms of going internationally

International Businesses are already that way.

* Entities from economic side are already dealing with it.

By Proxy - UN folks from different initiatives, those thinking about the entire world - surrogate.

=== Institutional Co-Conveners? ===

* MIT Media Lab - called for a dialogue about id bill of rights
* Careful of Gov. conveners - restrictions
* Common scaffolding - survey type thing - set of protocols. Blind men examining the elephant - handiness
** Different Languages coming together
** Framework for them to invite a variety - more useful
* Berkman
* UN?
* OECD - many initiatives going on

=== For Further Reading ===

Here are some pointers to papers on legal aspects of online identity that =JeffH has collected:

[http://iiw.idcommons.net/index.php/Bibliography:_Legal_Aspects_of_Online_Identity Bibliography: Legal Aspects of Online Identity]

ID-Legal

2008-07-08T17:34:14Z

Judi: /* WHO */

=== NEXT CALLS ===

Call details:

* Tue 07/01/08 10:00 AM - IIW Legal: Setting Goals, Review Draft Description [[ID-Legal 07-01-08 Call]]
* Tue 07/08/08 10:00 AM - IIW Legal: People and Groups [[ID-Legal 07-08-08]]

Dial in number: 1-309-946-5100
Access code: 44241

=== Draft Event Description ===

There is a lack of cross pollination between the legal community and technical community innovating digital identity systems.

* laws not in sync with technology - creating friction (e-signature)
* Tech comes out disruptive and the law doesn't know how to deal - causing evolution
* New Laws coming out - creating uncertainty back into technology markets.

We need to create a space for collaboration to understand
* what does the law really think 'an identity is' (depends on context: Homeland Security/travel vs financial vs criminal?)
* what do technologist mean when they use language describing identity and the technology they are building.

"THE LAW" needs to needs to evolve Solove's thesis the law needs to carefully evolve to handle notions of reputations and identity in the online world.

Individuals and Businesses have a joint interest in an identity system that allocates risk and rewards in a socially optimal way.

An example where this kind of early collaboration would have been helpful is the PKI
''this can be written into a better paragraph''
Technologists take things at face value
* previous wave of badness (post PKC) digital signature ( wouldn't it be cool if we could use them instead of paper ones)
* never bothered to ask what a 'signature' was from the point of view of the law - shape of the ink on the paper - performance of the act - intention to commit oneself to the contract

'''In the end Techies and Lawyers must make this whole environment that normal people can live in - they have not been talking to each other re: the problems let alone working better together to help regular people.'''

=== WHO ===

* '''Governmental entitles (fed, state, local, courts) & politicians'''
** DHS (Homeland Security) - some good folks
** Lawyers and staff for decision makers and the law (in congress, governors and state level), Barak and MaCain staff
** Commerce Committee
** NSA (Stewart Baker)
** Law Enforcement
** NCCUSL (Nat'l Conf Commission on Unified State Laws)

* '''Business and Corporate interests'''
** MySpace, Facebook
** Google, Yahoo, etc.
** Intel

* '''Universities, professors who have published papers, and law clinics'''
** Solove
** Susan Crawford
** Michael Froomkin - U Florida
** Beth Novak

* '''Consumer interest groups'''
** Consumer's Union
** National Consumer Law Center
** Privacy Coalition people
** EPIC

* '''Professional associations'''
** State and National Bar Assocs
*** CyberLaw Committees of Bar Associations - and chairs
** ACM
** IEEE
** Private Investigator Lobbying groups

* '''Related interests'''
** 22y olds - interesting Big learning curve
** Direct Marketing Assn.
** US Chamber of Commerce

* '''International Interests'''
** Prime Project? (part of 7th framework, ITU)
** Cisco & Joe Aledef (also International)
** International Chamber of Commerce

Eventually is Quick - in terms of going internationally

International Businesses are already that way.

* Entities from economic side are already dealing with it.

By Proxy - UN folks from different initiatives, those thinking about the entire world - surrogate.

=== Institutional Co-Conveners? ===

* MIT Media Lab - called for a dialogue about id bill of rights
* Careful of Gov. conveners - restrictions
* Common scaffolding - survey type thing - set of protocols. Blind men examining the elephant - handiness
** Different Languages coming together
** Framework for them to invite a variety - more useful
* Berkman
* UN?
* OECD - many initiatives going on

=== For Further Reading ===

Here are some pointers to papers on legal aspects of online identity that =JeffH has collected:

[http://iiw.idcommons.net/index.php/Bibliography:_Legal_Aspects_of_Online_Identity Bibliography: Legal Aspects of Online Identity]

ID-Legal

2008-07-08T17:33:19Z

Judi: /* WHO */

=== NEXT CALLS ===

Call details:

* Tue 07/01/08 10:00 AM - IIW Legal: Setting Goals, Review Draft Description [[ID-Legal 07-01-08 Call]]
* Tue 07/08/08 10:00 AM - IIW Legal: People and Groups [[ID-Legal 07-08-08]]

Dial in number: 1-309-946-5100
Access code: 44241

=== Draft Event Description ===

There is a lack of cross pollination between the legal community and technical community innovating digital identity systems.

* laws not in sync with technology - creating friction (e-signature)
* Tech comes out disruptive and the law doesn't know how to deal - causing evolution
* New Laws coming out - creating uncertainty back into technology markets.

We need to create a space for collaboration to understand
* what does the law really think 'an identity is' (depends on context: Homeland Security/travel vs financial vs criminal?)
* what do technologist mean when they use language describing identity and the technology they are building.

"THE LAW" needs to needs to evolve Solove's thesis the law needs to carefully evolve to handle notions of reputations and identity in the online world.

Individuals and Businesses have a joint interest in an identity system that allocates risk and rewards in a socially optimal way.

An example where this kind of early collaboration would have been helpful is the PKI
''this can be written into a better paragraph''
Technologists take things at face value
* previous wave of badness (post PKC) digital signature ( wouldn't it be cool if we could use them instead of paper ones)
* never bothered to ask what a 'signature' was from the point of view of the law - shape of the ink on the paper - performance of the act - intention to commit oneself to the contract

'''In the end Techies and Lawyers must make this whole environment that normal people can live in - they have not been talking to each other re: the problems let alone working better together to help regular people.'''

=== WHO ===

* '''Governmental entitles (fed, state, local, courts) & politicians'''
** DHS (Homeland Security) - some good folks
** Lawyers and staff for decision makers and the law (in congress, governors and state level), Barak and MaCain staff
** Commerce Committee
** NSA (Stewart Baker)
** Law Enforcement
** NCCUSL (Nat'l Conf Commission on Unified State Laws)

* '''Business and Corporate interests'''
** MySpace, Facebook
** Google, Yahoo, etc.
** Intel

* '''Universities, professors who have published papers, and law clinics'''
** Solove
** Susan Crawford
** Michael Froomkin - U Florida
** Beth Novak

* '''Consumer interest groups'''
** Consumer's Union
** National Consumer Law Center
** Privacy Coalition people
** EPIC

* '''Professional associations'''
** State and National Bar Assocs
*** CyberLaw Committees of Bar Associations - and chairs
** ACM
** IEEE
** Private Investigator Lobbying groups

* '''Related interests'''
** 22y olds - interesting Big learning curve
** Direct Marketing Assn.

* '''International Interests'''
** Prime Project? (part of 7th framework, ITU)
** Cisco & Joe Aledef (also International)

Eventually is Quick - in terms of going internationally

International Businesses are already that way.

* Entities from economic side are already dealing with it.

By Proxy - UN folks from different initiatives, those thinking about the entire world - surrogate.

=== Institutional Co-Conveners? ===

* MIT Media Lab - called for a dialogue about id bill of rights
* Careful of Gov. conveners - restrictions
* Common scaffolding - survey type thing - set of protocols. Blind men examining the elephant - handiness
** Different Languages coming together
** Framework for them to invite a variety - more useful
* Berkman
* UN?
* OECD - many initiatives going on

=== For Further Reading ===

Here are some pointers to papers on legal aspects of online identity that =JeffH has collected:

[http://iiw.idcommons.net/index.php/Bibliography:_Legal_Aspects_of_Online_Identity Bibliography: Legal Aspects of Online Identity]

ID-Legal

2008-07-08T15:51:32Z

Judi: /* WHO */

=== NEXT CALLS ===

Call details:

* Tue 07/01/08 10:00 AM - IIW Legal: Setting Goals, Review Draft Description [[ID-Legal 07-01-08 Call]]
* Tue 07/08/08 10:00 AM - IIW Legal: People and Groups

Dial in number: 1-309-946-5100
Access code: 44241

=== Draft Event Description ===

There is a lack of cross pollination between the legal community and technical community innovating digital identity systems.

* laws not in sync with technology - creating friction (e-signature)
* Tech comes out disruptive and the law doesn't know how to deal - causing evolution
* New Laws coming out - creating uncertainty back into technology markets.

We need to create a space for collaboration to understand
* what does the law really think 'an identity is' (depends on context: Homeland Security/travel vs financial vs criminal?)
* what do technologist mean when they use language describing identity and the technology they are building.

"THE LAW" needs to needs to evolve Solove's thesis the law needs to carefully evolve to handle notions of reputations and identity in the online world.

Individuals and Businesses have a joint interest in an identity system that allocates risk and rewards in a socially optimal way.

An example where this kind of early collaboration would have been helpful is the PKI
''this can be written into a better paragraph''
Technologists take things at face value
* previous wave of badness (post PKC) digital signature ( wouldn't it be cool if we could use them instead of paper ones)
* never bothered to ask what a 'signature' was from the point of view of the law - shape of the ink on the paper - performance of the act - intention to commit oneself to the contract

'''In the end Techies and Lawyers must make this whole environment that normal people can live in - they have not been talking to each other re: the problems let alone working better together to help regular people.'''

=== WHO ===

* '''Governmental entitles (fed, state, local?) & politicians'''
** DHS (Homeland Security) - some good folks
** Lawyers and staff for decision makers and the law (in congress, governors and state level), Barak and MaCain staff
** Commerce Committee
** NSA (Stewart Baker)
** Law Enforcement

* '''Business and Corporate interests'''
** MySpace, Facebook
** Google, Yahoo, etc.
** Intel

* '''Universities, professors who have published papers, and law clinics'''
** Solove
** Susan Crawford
** Michael Froomkin - U Florida
** Beth Novak

* '''Consumer interest groups'''
** Consumer's Union
** National Consumer Law Center
** Privacy Coalition people

* '''Professional associations'''
** State and National Bar Assocs
*** CyberLaw Committees of Bar Associations - and chairs
** ACM
** IEEE
** Private Investigator Lobbying groups

* '''Related interests'''
** 22y olds - interesting Big learning curve
** Direct Marketing Assn.

Eventually is Quick - in terms of going internationally

International Businesses are already that way.

* Entities from economic side are already dealing with it.

By Proxy - UN folks from different initiatives, those thinking about the entire world - surrogate.

=== Institutional Co-Conveners? ===

* MIT Media Lab - called for a dialogue about id bill of rights
* Careful of Gov. conveners - restrictions
* Common scaffolding - survey type thing - set of protocols. Blind men examining the elephant - handiness
** Different Languages coming together
** Framework for them to invite a variety - more useful
* Berkman
* UN?
* OECD - many initiatives going on

=== For Further Reading ===

Here are some pointers to papers on legal aspects of online identity that =JeffH has collected:

[http://iiw.idcommons.net/index.php/Bibliography:_Legal_Aspects_of_Online_Identity Bibliography: Legal Aspects of Online Identity]

ID-Legal

2008-07-08T15:45:47Z

Judi: /* WHO */

=== NEXT CALLS ===

Call details:

* Tue 07/01/08 10:00 AM - IIW Legal: Setting Goals, Review Draft Description [[ID-Legal 07-01-08 Call]]
* Tue 07/08/08 10:00 AM - IIW Legal: People and Groups

Dial in number: 1-309-946-5100
Access code: 44241

=== Draft Event Description ===

There is a lack of cross pollination between the legal community and technical community innovating digital identity systems.

* laws not in sync with technology - creating friction (e-signature)
* Tech comes out disruptive and the law doesn't know how to deal - causing evolution
* New Laws coming out - creating uncertainty back into technology markets.

We need to create a space for collaboration to understand
* what does the law really think 'an identity is' (depends on context: Homeland Security/travel vs financial vs criminal?)
* what do technologist mean when they use language describing identity and the technology they are building.

"THE LAW" needs to needs to evolve Solove's thesis the law needs to carefully evolve to handle notions of reputations and identity in the online world.

Individuals and Businesses have a joint interest in an identity system that allocates risk and rewards in a socially optimal way.

An example where this kind of early collaboration would have been helpful is the PKI
''this can be written into a better paragraph''
Technologists take things at face value
* previous wave of badness (post PKC) digital signature ( wouldn't it be cool if we could use them instead of paper ones)
* never bothered to ask what a 'signature' was from the point of view of the law - shape of the ink on the paper - performance of the act - intention to commit oneself to the contract

'''In the end Techies and Lawyers must make this whole environment that normal people can live in - they have not been talking to each other re: the problems let alone working better together to help regular people.'''

=== WHO ===

* Governmental entitles (fed, state, local?) & politicians
** DHS (Homeland Security) - some good folks
** Lawyers and staff for decision makers and the law (in congress, governors and state level), Barak and MaCain staff
** Commerce Committee
** NSA (Stewart Baker)
** Law Enforcement

* Business and Corporate interests
** MySpace, Facebook
** Google, Yahoo, etc.
** Intel

* Universities, professors who have published papers, and law clinics
** Solove
** Susan Crawford
** Michael Froomkin - U Florida
** Beth Novak

* Consumer interest groups
** Consumer's Union
** National Consumer Law Center
** Privacy Coalition people

* professional associations
** State and National Bar Assocs
*** CyberLaw Committees of Bar Associations - and chairs
** ACM
** IEEE
** Private Investigator Lobbying groups

* related interests (Direct Marketing Assoc, etc)
** 22y olds - interesting Big learning curve
** Direct Marketing Group

Eventually is Quick - in terms of going internationally

International Businesses are already that way.

* Entities from economic side are already dealing with it.

By Proxy - UN folks from different initiatives, those thinking about the entire world - surrogate.

=== Institutional Co-Conveners? ===

* MIT Media Lab - called for a dialogue about id bill of rights
* Careful of Gov. conveners - restrictions
* Common scaffolding - survey type thing - set of protocols. Blind men examining the elephant - handiness
** Different Languages coming together
** Framework for them to invite a variety - more useful
* Berkman
* UN?
* OECD - many initiatives going on

=== For Further Reading ===

Here are some pointers to papers on legal aspects of online identity that =JeffH has collected:

[http://iiw.idcommons.net/index.php/Bibliography:_Legal_Aspects_of_Online_Identity Bibliography: Legal Aspects of Online Identity]