Welcome & antitrust notice

Agenda review

Antitrust Policy Notice: Attendees are reminded to adhere to the meeting agenda and not participate in activities prohibited under antitrust and competition laws. Only members of ToIP who have signed the necessary agreements are permitted to participate in  this activity beyond an observer role.

Main comments needed on Part 3 of the paper.

Trev Harmon has 4.5 pages of notes at ID2020 will provide actionable feedback.

General impressions focused on the frameworks e.g. STS, curious as to why it was chosen and then modified.  Some places where systemic to society not identity specifically. Disconnect between the harms that occur and how SSI mitigates / exacerbates some sections stronger than others.  Some seem overly reductive. P19 last paragraph, connection between philosophical sides and action side especially quoting chinese or indian philosophy without any citations or support

Offered several recommendations on improving connections in text to be more straight forward.  good to be working on this to avoid future harms from SSI. 

Darrell O'Donnell lots of explanations in document not quick and fast enough.  

Nicky Hickman  need to reduce paper and make it more useful and more accessible to different types of readers. e.g. add requirements section at the end.  e.g. remove moon analogy

Trev Harmon the key elements are being buried behind the frameworks

Phil Wolff suggested added frameworks as appendices.  Return to simpler approach, 

• these are the harms, this is why you should care, then discuss what to do next as implementers.

Trev Harmon suggested that systemic issues shouldn't go away from discussion but perhaps not right in same document.  Some of the harm discussion was shorter than it needed to be, some of frameworks longer than it needed to be.

Phil Wolff frameworks might help for systematic modelling of harms.  Concerns many aspects of organisations in public / private sector.   A framework for building on what you already have, should be advantageous, maybe as a separate blog post.  Should not miss opportunities to identify harm.

Nicky Hickman will 

• take out the moon analogy
• move frameworks to appendix & trim
• simplify and clarify text
• improve exec summary so that it is a 2min useful read

Trev Harmon will join the group to contribute to this work.

Neil Thomson It's a great document - leave it alone and make it as a background document. Build one or more new documents from the different perspectives/audiences who will consume it.  I am outside comfort zone, there are things that are harms not because of tech or intent but because of things outside our control. So remove those indirect & felt harms. 

Phil Wolff said we wanted to point out that you are also responsible for some of the negative externalities that occur.  Because includes governance stack these should be addressed by the ecosystem as a whole. e.g. harms surveillance, or by regulators in terms of compliance. 

Neil Thomson highlighted the Canadian CIO Council's mandate

that identifier issuers are currently developed as being governments or other government accredited institutions such as banksgov and banking ID issuers.