The Open Identity Exchange, along with the American Bar Association’s Identity Management Legal Taskforce and the World Bank, hosted a workshop on January 14, 2015 in Washington D.C. with the objective of discussing the main concerns surrounding the adoption of identity management law and policy, helping to develop a common language around internet identity.
Attendees included industry leaders in identity and relevant regulatory bodies. The key theme reiterated throughout the event was the importance of focusing on outcome-based legislation. Participants voiced concern that legislation prescribing a specific technical process to implement identity standards would hinder innovation and ultimately prevent the success of a new legal regime.
The group was briefed on three main efforts to develop identity management-specific policy:
- United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (United Nations);
- Uniform Law Commission (United States);
- Identity Management Standards Advisory Council (Virginia).
Experts involved in each effort shared their opinions on how attendees could utilize their expertise to aid these efforts. These projects are moving forward at a domestic and international level to set the groundwork for a broader discussion around the impact of standards-based versus risk-based approaches to achieve the outcomes-based model regarded so positively in the discussions. Anti-Money Laundering (AML) is an important proof point in this regard for international banking.
In addition to leaders in US identity related legislation, architects of the EU eIDAS regulation were present at the event and shared their expertise on the development and function of identity-management specific law. The eIDAS team was able to show how the law they developed spurs the rapid development of solutions to problems to cooperation. They emphasized how the outcome focused nature of the eIDAS regulation allows it to continually adapt to changing technology. In examining the use case of eIDAS, attendees were able to generate new ideas of how a similar system could be adapted to the United States.
Discussions were moderated throughout the day on the following topics relating to identity management-specific law:
- Trust, Interoperability, and Enforceability;
- Privacy and Security;
- Business and Technical Standards;
- Participant Obligations;
- Legislative Goals.
These wide ranging issues gave attendees an update on the major critiques that potential legislation will face as it attempts to address the challenges of internet identity.
Ultimately, the group agreed on the need to develop a common set of issues that must be addressed in any identity management-specific law. Although there was disagreement over the standards surrounding privacy and security, attendees recognized the need to focus on developing law that allows industry to continue to innovate while protecting the interests of consumers throughout the identity management processes.
OIX encourages approaches that identity management law can be developed to serve in the cross-section of international law, identity management, and corporate policy. Follow up events planned in both London and Amsterdam on March 24 will give attendees and members of OIX the ability to continue this important conversation while learning from experts from across the identity ecosystem and develop a common language of internet identity.
One of the take-aways from the Open Identity Exchange Economics of Identity Conference last week in London was potential impact of regulatory and legislative changes driven by the European Union’s eIDaSS program and the common digital market. Andrea Servida, Head of the EU’s Task Force on Identity, outlined the changes that will redefine digital markets and identity services in 2016 and beyond.
As a result, Open Identity Exchange is extending its core focus a bit to address international identity management legal and policy issues. Together with our co-sponsors we hope to obtain the views and recommendations of Open Identity Exchange members on the direction of soon-to-be-developed identity legislation. The meeting is co-sponsored by the Open Identity Exchange, the ABA Identity Management Legal Task Force, and The World Bank.
The meeting will review several recent legal and policy developments that have important implications for identity transactions. In addition to identity management legislation recently enacted by the State of Virginia and the European Union, two key identity management legislative initiatives are in the works. First, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has agreed to undertake a project to develop international legal rules for identity management. Second, in the U.S., the Uniform Law Commission is considering a proposal to establish a committee to draft uniform identity management legislation for enactment by the 50 U.S. states.
The legal and policy choices made by these and other legislative processes will have a significant impact on everyone who issues or consumes online identity credentials. Thus, the meeting co-sponsors will be seeking your input and guidance regarding the appropriate direction of identity management law and policy, so as to inform the processes in both the U.S. and internationally. As with all Open Identity Exchange initiatives we’ll share the outcomes and hopefully help advance the conversations in the US, UK and Europe via OIX workshops, white papers and websites.
Anyone who has been to a Yankee game in the Bronx knows that the umpire’s best day is when the fans forget he’s on the field. In his mind, he only gets recognized after having made a mistake. One can’t help but see the parallel to the United States Supreme Court in light of the past week’s rulings on issues from same-sex marriage to health care. Chief Justice John Roberts sees himself in a similar situation to the umpire in his role on the Supreme Court.
In the Chief Justice’s mind, “umpires don’t make the rules, they help apply them. While the rules are made elsewhere the role of an umpire is critical. They help everybody play by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.” 
In this way the role of the Supreme Court and the OIX registry are somewhat similar. The Open Identity Exchange registry is given multiple sets of rules and by publishing them for all to see makes enforcement possible. The Open Identity Exchange’s trust registry make enforcement possible in
three ways. First it exposes an organization’s compliance to a set of rules (whitelists, trust frameworks, etc.) to the judgement of its peers. None has a keener interest in a companies compliance than its competitors. The second enforcement dynamic is the powerful binding of an organization’s public self attestation to a set of legal claims and technical tests. The brand risk alone ensures a company thinks carefully before publicly declaring compliance. Lastly, the OIXnet.org registry invites a crowd sourced scrutiny of claims of conformance. In this way Open Identity Exchange uses a minimal viable governance approach to support a diverse set of trust frameworks, whitelists, listing services, etc.
A general purpose registry like OIXnet, as a neutral third-party publisher of rule sets, is able to provide authoritative information to all stakeholders on behalf of a variety of registrants. It is as if the umpire has outlined the strike zone in neon tape for the entire stadium to see. It would be hard for batters to argue when all of the information is available for anyone to see. Each set of the business, legal and technical requirements of a trust framework registered at OIXnet.org will be the neon tape for all to see. Through a “transparency drives trust” value proposition, “anyone, at anytime, anywhere, can see everything registered in the OIXnet.org registry without charge.” 
Although Justice Roberts is right that, “nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire,” it would be hard to argue that it makes his role any less important. Although Open Identity Exchange will never develop its own trust frameworks, it would be hard to argue the role of the OIXnet.org registry any less important Rosen, Jeffrey. “John Roberts, the Umpire in Chief.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 June 2015. Web. 29 June 2015.  OIXnet.org
At the OIX pre-discovery event in May, senior representatives from leading private and public sector organizations, many of them OIX members, collaborated on the first step of analyzing how they wanted to define open identity services in the UK. A federated approach to internet identity as the engine of a cross sector market model were favoured outcomes. The benefits of such an approach were seen in, increased customer acquisition and revenue, reduced fraud and compliance costs, all together in an improved customer experience. The OIX White paper written by Innovate Identity expands the outcomes of that day.
UK Members have asked OIX to accelerate the discovery project during the next two months with the purpose of articulating actionable plans for overall UK identity market standards across sector, and to share its findings in a OIX White paper that will inform discussions at OIX’s Economics of Identity II summit planned for November (date to be announced soon).
This increased pace and scope includes targeted industry engagement refined through a series of sector specific workshops surveys to capture industry feedback for analysis (see the white paper appendix for the survey questions). Innovate Identity working closely with OIX will drive the testing of user needs to anticipate stakeholder interests in federated identity ecosystems.
This project is the first of its kind and one of a kind in its scope, scale and ambition it may prove to be a significant step to a UK market where the public and private sector work together to create an open and trustworthy digital identity market
We hope you will participate, alongside our members – email firstname.lastname@example.org to be involved in the project, attend the workshops and respond to the survey.
The first principle of good on-line service design is to put the customer first. This can be quite straightforward when an organisation is in complete control of an online transaction. It becomes a lot more difficult when other organisations are involved. This is often the case in local government transactions where information about a customer’s entitlement or eligibility for a service is held by Government departments. The customer can then get lost in a difficult and time-consuming paper chase as they assemble the evidence they require to secure the service they need.
In those situations putting the customer first means finding a quick and efficient way of sharing eligibility and entitlement information on-line, in real time while the customer is filling out their on-line application form. And eliminating the paper chase isn’t only good for customers. It means local and central government can deliver services more efficiently and at lower cost.
The first challenge, then, is to develop effective, real-time data sharing mechanisms that allow eligibility and entitlement information to flow between organisations.
There is a problem, though. There have been a number of reports recently (see for example a recent report by the Digital Catapult) showing that the public do not trust organisations with their data and don’t know how that data is being used. This fear is fuelled by repeated stories of data breaches in both the private and public sectors.
So the second challenge is to share data in a way that customers understand, trust and are prepared to accept.
Warwickshire County Council has been working with The Government Digital Service and private sector partners (Verizon, Mydex andNorthgate Public Services) to deliver a number of Open Identity Exchange (OIX) sponsored projects that address these challenges head on. Last year we demonstrated that putting the customer in control of the data that is being shared in an online transaction can build trust and acceptance. The customers understood what data was being shared and why it was being shared. They were also delighted with the way the data sharing improved service delivery.
In our latest OIX project we have demonstrated that it is possible to build a technical solution that allows this data sharing happen for real. You can read about our findings in the white paper and technical paper on the OIXUK web site. We call the solution attribute exchange, and it has a number of key characteristics:
- Data is shared online, in real-time so that complex transactions can be completed there and then
- The customer is in control of the data that is shared and has to give consent before data is shared
- We know it is the customer who has consented because they have used their highly assured UK Verify credentials to log in
- Only the minimum data necessary to drive the transaction in hand is exchanged. In many cases the service provider only needs to get a yes/no answer back from the attribute provider. In our use case Warwickshire asked the DWP a simple yes/no question: “is this customer eligible for a Blue Badge?”
- The solution meets the relevant privacy principles developed by the Privacy and Consumer Advisory Group for identity assurance
- The solution is generic and standards based. It could be used for any service and any service provider/attribute provider pairing. It is applicable to the private and public sectors and could handle transactions that require a combination of private and public sector data
Attribute exchange can address the two challenges of providing online, real-time exchange of data in a way that customers trust, accept and welcome. The next challenge is to bring this solution to the market as a live service in order to deliver its transformative potential. This needs both the private and public sectors to participate. The private sector needs to provide the attribute exchange mechanisms. The public sector needs to embrace this opportunity to make life better for our customers while at the same time meeting demands for greater efficiency and lower costs.
There are signs that the private and public sectors are both prepared to step up to the mark. Watch this space.
Ian Litton. Warwickshire County Council
OIX member meetings are “dog fooding” exercises. We walk our talk of transparency in the hope that members trust the organization they contribute their time and treasure. This is to share notes from our last meeting.
Survival, if not success, of organizations like Open Identity Exchange (OIX), requires a very clear, precise description of the value propositions from a number of member perspectives.
The value propositions of organizations like OIX, the OpenID Foundation and others are clearer now that the problem space has matured to the point that it can now recognize what Open Identity Exchange has to offer – e.g. a general purpose trust registry fits the needs of other organizations who need a trusted place to register trusted identity systems. Organizational ears in the US, UK and Canada are tuning in.
The next set of needs for this emerging open market will be processes for terms/policy/rules standardization. As the registry matures, it will expose more models available in the current landscape and enable Trust Framework Providers (TFPs) to be grouped and make it easier for the TFPs that follow. The OIXnet registry does not, by itself, fill in the gaps to help draw separate TFs together toward policy interoperability. This interfederation won’t be extant in the early days, but as the network effect takes hold, it’s likely to be relevant.
OIXnet builds processes that are deliberately simple first to perform the enrollment function of informing with common information so separate processes can start to gravitate toward shared, broader interoperability requirements. As the OIXnet registration data is made more transparent and markets react it can help strengthen federation and facilitate interoperability across TFP requirements.
OIX policy allows registrants to reduce risk by ensuring that other stakeholders are committed to the same set of (enforceable) terms and will in turn, behave more predictably. This is what some call the “self-binding” issue, and it requires competitors to embrace the concept that some things that are better done in groups. We have real examples in the UK and US with MNOs collaborating to build identity services available only when ubiquitous market coverage is available.
Each competitor, be they MNO or retailer, does an “outsourcing” calculus, weighing benefits and downsides of being dependent on a third-party platform they help build. One doesn’t have to go far to reference similar outsourcing delegations to networks for shipping, payroll preparation, data processing, etc. The latest “outsourcing” opportunity is identity services, and OIXnet could be seen as a market information platform to accelerate and govern these multiparty agreements.
OIX workshops, pilots and white papers assess and reflect progress on the pathway to date with the goal of pulling forward the futures members are impatient to manifest. It’s OIX members that have got us to this place. A place where OIX is poised to make an even bigger positive impact to the many stakeholders it serves.
Pilots and problem solving, like science experiments, don’t always work as expected. But we always publish results in the hope we can advance the conversation. OIX takes on the hardest problems in identity like liability. We enable competitors to collaborate through a remarkable IPR container used by global leaders.
OIX has helped pilots involving shared signals and Mobile Network Operators across borders. Years ago, Google and Verizon collaborated on an OIX pilot called “Street Identity” sorting out the issues of binding a physical “street” address with an online address like an email account. It was an agile, “Googley” approach; market test a hypothesis, see it works and then “wash, rinse and repeat.”
And of late we’ve turned our attention on how best to verify the identities of the disadvantaged, the “thin file” demographics. There’s been a lot of recent discussions on helping disadvantaged citizens AKA the under-banked, the ‘thin files’ folks unable to participate fully in government-to-citizen services online. It’s a growing problem common to governments and Internet identity systems worldwide.
OIX Board member companies like Equifax, Experian and LexisNexis are building commercial data solutions that address the verification of the ‘thin file’ demographic. CA Technology, Microsoft and others provide the enterprise systems at scale that support attribute exchange across populations. Ping Identity, Verizon and others are looking at extending attribute provisioning into national health care systems.
These members have in common is that they are all involved in the GOV.UK Verify program at the same time exploring similar propositions with Federal and State officials in the US. The ROI of delivering G2C services is compelling and happening now. It seems the right thing to do and an economically sensible area to explore.
We’ll build on the OIX’s GOV.UK Verify pilots and White Papers. The idea is simple – learn from UK Pilots in South Yorkshire, Warwickshire, etc. to inform pilots in the US.
Truth be told, innovations occur where the rubber hits the road, at the state, local and municipal levels. Whether in Warwickshire or Pennsylvania, South Yorkshire or Virginia, British Columbia or Texas, that’s where real problems in verifying identity gets solved; its where Internet identity isn’t aspirational its critical.
Many have noted similarities in the work of the US National Strategy on Trusted Identity in Cyberspace’s via its Identity Ecosystem Steering Group, and in the UK via HMG Cabinet Office Identity Assurance Program via its Identity Steering Group.
After the recent US National Strategy on Trusted Identity in Cyberspace Plenary in Atlanta, I attended meetings in London that focused on how the progress and precedents in GOV.UK Verify can inform business cases for identity services across both public and private sectors. The common denominator is a need for a private sector led, public private partnership, that helps accelerate the volume, velocity and variety of Internet transactions while recognizing government’s role in protecting the security and privacy of its citizens.
At an Open Identity Exchange (OIX) speaker’s dinner preceding a big tech entrepreneurs’ conference at the Royal Institute of Great Britain, industry leaders and investors from British banks and Silicon Valley talked about how best to grow bespoke services in the UK that interoperate with global identity ecosystems. There was begrudging acknowledgement that emerging UK identity services markets risk being dominated by a small group of US companies whose “walled gardens” and proprietary standards limit the upside and expansion for established and entrepreneurial enterprises alike in Britain.
All the attendees acknowledged that leveraging GOV.UK Verify as a catalyst for commercial services pivots on issues around how identity services that serve government might be repurposed for commercial applications. Put another way; what are the rules of the road in the UK for the reuse of government approved identity services?
The need for guidelines for the Internet—a Magna Carta, of sorts—was part of a discussion with Baroness Martha Lane Fox and others on the BBC recently. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b048l00t). A week later in Silicon Valley, President Obama called for new cooperation to wrangle the Wild West of the Internet. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/14/business/obama-urges-tech-companies-to-cooperate-on-internet-security.html?_r=0)
HMG Minister for Cabinet Office Francis Maude reminded us before the dinner that all stakeholders have much to gain by a public-private partnership like OIX. It can help develop, deploy and govern a set of scheme rules that clarify and articulate the business, technical and legal interoperability requirements needed for robust business cases. The Right Honorable Francis Maude’s remarks reminded many of us of his “JFDI” reference at the first Economics of Identity conference held last June in London.
Minister Maude eschewed that particular exhortation in his keynote last week, but his message was clear: British taxpayers will be well served by the efficiencies of the Government Digital Service (GDS) GOV.UK Verify program, as well as the catalyst it can provide to the emerging identity services in the UK private sector.
During the OIX member meetings that followed, GDS leader Chris Ferguson pointed to the challenge of starting with government procurement language to inform a public and private sector set of scheme rules.
The OIX Advisory Board noted the success of trust frameworks underway via the Transglobal Secure Collaboration Participation (TSCP) in defense and aerospace, and with the SAFE-BioPharma Association in the biopharmaceutical and healthcare sectors. Today these organizations provide identity federation services that are the rules of the road necessary to govern their sectors’ commercial Internet identity systems.
OIX UK is beginning to organize what we call a “scheme rules sprint” using a proven multi-stakeholder collaboration process that solves a specific and common problem. The process is key, as we take on the forcing-functions of transparency and a second annual Economics of Identity Conference on Canary Wharf on June 30 of this year. This work, like all others, will follow the now time-tested process set out in the UK Identity Steering Group, ensuring transparency and deliverables as we would expect with any government and Open Identity Exchange led project.
It is terribly presumptuous to compare our modest scheme rules or trust framework development efforts to a modern Magna Carta. But as they say in the UK, it’s a direction of travel, a way to honor the original Magna Carta on its anniversary and a road worth taking.