CTAB Call Tuesday November 1, 2022
Atttending
- David Bantz, University of Alaska (chair)
- Jon Miner, University of Wisc - Madison (co-chair)
- Pål Axelsson, SUNET
- Richard Frovarp, North Dakota State
- Mike Grady, Liaison from CACTI to CTAB
- Eric Goodman, UCOP - InCommon TAC Representative to CTAB
- Andy Morgan, Oregon State University
- Rick Wagner, UCSD
- Tom Barton, Internet2, ex-officio
- Johnny Lasker, Internet2
- Kevin Morooney, Internet2
- Ann West, Internet2
- Albert Wu, Internet2
- Emily Eisbruch, Internet2
Regrets
- Sarah Borland, University of Nebraska
- Ercan Elibol, Florida Polytech Institute
- Meshna Koren, Elsevier
- Dave Robinson, Grinnell College in Iowa, InCommon Steering Rep, ex-officio
- Chris Whalen, Research Data and Communication Technologies
- Jule Ziegler, Leibniz Supercomputing Centre
- Robert Zybeck, Portland Community College
Discussion
Intellectual Property reminder
Working group updates
- InCommon TAC
- October 20 meeting was further discussion of Self-sovereign identities with developers from MIT
- October 20 meeting was further discussion of Self-sovereign identities with developers from MIT
- CACTI
- Discussion about verifiable credentials.
- Discussion on FTC Title 16 requirements and questions about their impact on assurance.
- https://er.educause.edu/articles/2022/3/higher-ed-responds-to-proposed-safeguards-rule-reporting-requirement
- SIRTFI Tabletop Exercise : prep is complete, the exercise will occur November 15-17.
2023 CTAB members nominations
- 8 nominations have been received for CTAB membership
- CTAB could potentially have 7 seats open
- CTAB Charter http://doi.org/10.26869/TI.94.1 states:
- “The CTAB should consist of between seven and thirteen voting members”
- CTAB Terms are three years
- Several of the individuals nominated for CTAB are candidates for other advisory groups
- Leadership will decide where is the best fit for those individuals
- This can happen on the upcoming InCommon advisory group chairs call
- After decisions are made, CTAB will submit a slate to InCommon Steering
- Election of CTAB chair:
- AI - By November 8,
All continuing CTAB members, please Albert know if you DO NOT want to be on the ballot for CTAB chair - Also, feel free to let Albert know if you DO want to be on the ballot for CTAB chair
- Suggestion for staggering the CTAB terms
- 4 CTAB terms will expire in 2023, 2 CTAB terms will expire in 2024
- Suggestion we have shorter terms for some of those becoming CTAB members now in order to even things out
- 4 CTAB terms will expire in 2023, 2 CTAB terms will expire in 2024
Summary of CTAB recommendations to Steering re Baseline Expectations V2
- Recommendations have been sent to InCommon Steering regarding outstanding organizations
- BE2 Dispute Resolution Action Plan
- Group 1 - Unused/deprecated Entities
- Plan is for removal of entities (un-publishing of metadata) on Dec 12, (after a final notification)
- Group 2 - Service Providers missing BE2 requirements
- all of them missing SIRTFI
- Several have missing exec contacts
- Group 3 - Identity Providers missing BE2 requirements
- start removing this group in January, gives us more time for reaching out
- Group 4 - False Readings / Update delays
- (this is a placeholder category currently)
- Group 1 - Unused/deprecated Entities
- Feedback from InCommon Steering exec call, per Ann
- There was agreement on removing Group 1
- Suggestion that CTAB come back to Steering in January to discuss next steps
- There is concern around removing entities
- A suggestion was make an InCommon terms of service change requiring SIRTFI, rather than making the orgs click the box for SIRTFI as part of Baseline Expectations.
Use community dispute resolution process if there are issues.
- A suggestion was make an InCommon terms of service change requiring SIRTFI, rather than making the orgs click the box for SIRTFI as part of Baseline Expectations.
Suggestion for middle ground:
- Jon suggested we could adopt the middle ground that all entities are expected (by contract) to comply with SIRTFI regardless checking the box,
but that we wouldn’t assert it unless they checked the box, since the latter is a positive assertion by the entity, and those that care will do so.
This would allow us to deal with anybody who is “caught” not complying using dispute resolution,
but we still assume good intentions, regardless the box being checked?
TechEx preparation
- Presentation (joint with CANARIE)
- Open discussion / lunch
- Dinner in Denver
Next CTAB Call: Tuesday, November 15, 2022