InCommon Federation Discussions About Online Student Services

[Dean Woodbeck <>]

InCommon Student Collaboration

21-Jan-2011

----------

Attending

Brendan Bellina, University of Southern California

Keith Hazelton, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Mark McConnahay, Indiana University

Mark Scheible, North Carolina State University

Linda Shepherd, Indiana University

Ann West, Internet2

Dean Woodbeck, Internet2 (scribe)

----------

Action Items

(AI) Ann will contact WICHE concerning identity-vetting vendor methodology information.

(AI) Ann will start an outline for the “identity proofing survey” paper in the wiki.

(AI) Keith will develop the “problem analysis” portion of the paper.

(AI) Linda will continue to massage the survey data.

(AI) Mark and Linda will work to categorize: 1) those who are doing identity proofing, 2) those who are not and 3) those who claim to be but do not appear to be.

(AI) Ann will write-up the two alternatives and red herring that are part of the presentation done at the Educause and Internet2 meetings.

----------

Axciom

There was a discussion about any follow-up planned with Acxiom, based on the last call. 

• Mark M. received client information from Mike Jortberg at Acxiom; Mark also provided Mike with information about the AACRAO Tech conference.
• The concept of a contract between Acxiom and InCommon was discussed, but would probably be down the road, after a campus or two have experience. Would be good to mention the potential for a community or centrally offered service in the paper, including a summary of their methodology.
• Mark S. has seen a demo

There was a question about whether to include vendor methodologies in the paper or whether to survey potential vendors on their methodologies. (AI) Ann will contact WICHE to see if they have any vendor information (at least some sort of list).

--------

Remote Proofing Paper

(AI) Ann will start an outline for the paper in the wiki.

1)  Problem analysis – (AI) Keith will develop the Problem Analysis portion of the paper, including a definition of the problem, demonstrating how things should work and discussing how they actually seem to work. Perhaps touch on LoA. 

2) Survey Results -- Linda has reviewed the survey data and is starting to create categories of responses. She plans to create a one- or two-page summary with a narrative of the survey and an eppendix with responses to each item. She is also looking for interesting bits of data to highlight or for follow up. She is also looking for areas of interest to which she should pay attention. Some thoughts:

• answers that seem to be outliers and/or have different approaches.
• -determining the line between 1) those claiming to do identity proofing and apparently are, 2) those who claim they are not identity proofing and 3) those who claim they are doing identity proofing but really don’t appear to be. (AI) Mark and Linda will take a pass at this.
• follow-up on methodologies for distribution of credentials – 1) robust methodologies and 2) vulnerable methodologies. 
• determine where proofing falls in the life cycle.

3) Alternatives – (AI) Ann will write-up the two alternatives and red herring that are part of the presentation done at the Educause and Internet2 meetings.

Deadlines – 

• Presentation at AACRAO Tech in July.
• Educause Quarterly – April 1 feature article deadline (June 28 release date)
• C&U – May 15 deadline for summer issue

---------

Next InCommon-Student Meeting

Friday, February 4, 2011 – 3 p.m. EST / 2 p.m. CST / Noon PST