HIMSIG20081113

Liberty Alliance Project
VPI SIG
Teleconference Meeting Notes
November 13, 2008
1:00pm-2:00pm EDT
Author: Kurt Kolok

Attendance:

Mike Osborne, ???
Kevin O’Neil, ISTPA/Cyva Research
Eve Maler, Sun
Iain Henderson, Mydex
Trent Adams, Data Portability Project

Brett McDowell , Liberty Staff
Joni Brennan, Liberty Staff
Kurt Kolok, Liberty Staff

AGENDA
1) What types of data we are talking about (e.g. search engine input, intentions to buy, complaints, attention), and building use cases that bring these to life.
2) The conditions under which VPI will be shared (e.g. the 12 data sharing dynamics I went through on the last call).
3) The data gathering, management and sharing mechanisms that comply to VPI standards (e.g Information Cards, Higgins), including how this information will be originated by the individual.
4) The individual terms and conditions that will emerge around different types of VPI, and how that terms and conditions mechanism will work (e.g. link contracts, machine readable privacy policies, icons based privacy policies).
5) The governance processes we will use to ensure compliance (e.g. Liberty IAF and IGF).
6) The business model/ business case for an individual sharing VPI and for an organisation agreeing to receive VPI.
7) Ways of understanding which organisations are able to engage on this basis.
8) Proofs of Concept/ Demonstrations of VPI capability (from both individual and organisational perspective).
9) What else have we missed that we'll need to cover/ do more research on.

1) What types of data we are talking about (e.g. search engine input, intentions to buy, complaints, attention), and building use cases that bring these to life. We should discuss the following types of data and test their validity, identify other work being done in each area that we might leverage, and determine if/ when we need to kick off some off-line work on the subject and who might lead on that.
Clusters of data:
--Factual queries: “I don’t understand my bill/invoice or my order.”
--Search types: data that can only come from the individual. Online searches.
--Orders—“I want to buy one of these”
--Specifications
--Complaints originate from individual
--Suggestions
--Opinions
--Opt ins and opt outs—I want to receive info from you or I do not.
--Peer advice/discussions
--What I really want is not offered.
--Future plans—I plan to buy a car in the next X months.
--Preferences: don’t like it in green but like It in blue.
--I don’t understand, can you help me…</b>

From a high level: What is the intent of this list? What is the end goal? We need to drill down to design specific attributes, specifications or protocol level model.

Content individuals need to supply to classes of vendors to get what they need or want (a class of personal information that can be shared). VPI is a class of personal information. This is a new type of data that does not exist except in the individual’s head. CRM data tends to be data from the past used to project forward, but that type of data is limited. VPI data is more specific data.

VPI vs. other kinds of information—VPI seems to be more meta or self referential/self-conscious (this information is not currently captured anywhere else). We are talking about a specific class of referencing service. Putting us in a position to be able to solicit service in a way we are currently unable to do.

Instead of trying to find out granular specificity or types of data from one side or the other, we are going to frame a contract around this relationship (i.e., user data, vendor defines different set of data that may be more structural, new class aka ‘service’ data that would be definitional).

What are the operations that can be performed against some data object? We need to clarify what amounts to specific content types. It might be too duplicative to get into the larger issue. You cannot “train the world”. There will have to be some type of intuitive aspect (Visa/Mastercard evolution is an example). There has not been any real training for people to learn how to use ATM cards at different bank machines. Consumers do not have to understand how the process works at their local bank; they just have to know how to access their funds. As a user, I cannot be a participant in the details of how this works behind the scenes.

We should focus on use cases and storyboards. Use cases can help in focusing the discussion.

What are the conditions when I would be willing to tell a vendor where I am? An example of this would be a medical emergency situation.

Part of the challenge of this new environment as a consumer would be not knowing how to do it. People need to identify/understand what the vendor is accessing and also need to understand how to control the requests for their information/release of their information.

Would it make sense to phase an approach to pick something that is clearly beneficial, with reasonable potential for success and build on top of that? Would it make sense for us to look at that as a group, know it is there, etc…? We should prioritize (an example of a high value use case would be “I’m going to buy one of these”).

Should we begin with some easier use cases or point to existing examples? Milestone #1 might be a list of existing products that address some of these issues. Once we get into the semi-private information we would need to delve deeper.

Preference modeling: there are certain types of engagement (for example, ‘transient’—a consumer is interested today but will not be interested tomorrow). Since we all buy things everyone can relate to this.

Action 20081113-01: Trent will circulate the Consumer Relations Ontology to the mail list.

We need to deal with the fact that there is no competitive dynamic to become good at this (as a business). We will need marketing materials layered on top of this use case work. Personal RFP has come up in discussions but it does not seem that anyone is working on it.

How can you qualify yourself as a lead (credit background maybe)? You may wish to be anonymous. Certain investment vehicles are not allowed to be marketed to anyone unless they are good leads. This is information that we are not capable of capturing and the consumer is not yet capable of offering it. Use cases will parse out both sides of the transaction.

Action 20081113-02: Kurt will forward the ID-WSF use cases/deployments and published MRD links to the mail list (resource area--case studies).

Note: We ran out of time on today’s call to address the following agenda topics, but will move these forward to the next call.

2) The conditions under which VPI will be shared (e.g. the 12 data sharing dynamics I went through on the last call).

3) The data gathering, management and sharing mechanisms that comply to VPI standards (e.g Information Cards, Higgins), including how this information will be originated by the individual.
4) The individual terms and conditions that will emerge around different types of VPI, and how that terms and conditions mechanism will work (e.g. link contracts, machine readable privacy policies, icons based privacy policies).
5) The governance processes we will use to ensure compliance (e.g. Liberty IAF and IGF).
6) The business model/ business case for an individual sharing VPI and for an organisation agreeing to receive VPI.
7) Ways of understanding which organisations are able to engage on this basis.
8) Proofs of Concept/ Demonstrations of VPI capability (from both individual and organisational perspective).
9) What else have we missed that we'll need to cover/ do more research on.

Meeting Adjourned