I answered these questions at the very end.They do not reflect my response because the governance NOI and questions made a lot of assumptions about what the right next step is, namely spinning up a steering group even when there is no shared language or understanding among the community of identified stakeholders. Without this, collaboration will be impossible and the group will struggle politically with “language” and questions about its “authority”, and likely fail. It is essential to take a few more months to strategically weave the community, facilitate a lot of map making, much sharing of ideas and visions,and by January it will be quite clear what the form of governance should be, because it will be clear what problems need to be solved and how the community of stakeholders wants to work together effectively to build an Identity Ecosystem. The methods outlined in the Insight for Governance section above stshould be used in an ongoing way to bring feedback into the system.

Structure of the Steering Group

1.1. Given the Guiding Principles outlined in the Strategy, what should be the structure of the steering group? What structures can support the technical, policy, legal, and operational aspects of the Identity Ecosystem without stifling innovation?

Answered on Page 41: Structure of the Steering Group

A systems approach must be taken, using methodologies for structure and process that are holistic and adaptive over time.  They must provide insight into the overall function and health of the ecosystem and give people who are leading organizations within the ecosystem a clear picture of where to intervene, how to adjust their behavior/actions relative to the players and for the overall good of the system. It must support new innovation while at the same time addressing new security threats and risks, and be adaptive to social and cultural changes.

Answered on Page 46

If the purpose of the group is to hold space for the broad range of stakeholders to share insights then it will be a far less “political” body. It is important to have a body that is diverse, but the mandate to listen and respond to the overall ecosystem makes it not “about” the members having the power to decide how to steer for all the stakeholders of the ecosystem because they were elected as their “representatives”, but rather their mandate is to convene periodic stakeholder conversations with well-tested proven methodologies and to act on the recommendations and insights they generate.

Answered on Page 47

The power held by the steering group is real, but limited by the conversational context of its operations. The ability of any one entity in the ecosystem to skew outcomes is limited by the equalizing and randomizing factors put in place.  In the system as set up, there is FAR more motivation to seek solutions that integrate one's own needs with those of others than there is to seek solutions that benefit oneself at the expense of others.

1.2. Are there broad, multi-sector examples of governance structures that match the scale of the steering group? If so, what makes them successful or unsuccessful? What challenges do they face? Answered on Page 39: Effective Information Sharing

Identity Commons was originally founded in 2001 by Owen Davis and Andrew Nelson to foster a user-centric identity layer of the web that the people “owned”. In 2007 the communities that gathered at the Internet Identity Workshop retained the purpose and principles of Identity Commons but transitioned to become a 501(c)6 organization linking and connecting efforts across a range of different communities and organizations.  Groups working on issues touching on user-centric identity did not have to leave their respective standards body or academic institution in order to join. Totally independent organizations could also join, and groups that had not yet formed their own organization or subsection of another organization could also join.

Identity Commons focuses on information sharing and playing a loose coordinating role as a form of providing relevant information to groups, to support informing their governance and decision-making relative to other groups, communities and organizations. It has a purpose and 7 principles that provide guidance for its community governance.

Above all else, they share a purpose; this links them together across their diverse approaches and foci. There is a subtlety to these principles and how they helps groups collaborate and share. The transparency principle is not about opening all information of all groups , but rather asking groups to be clear about how they operate and work, to be transparent about the level of transparency.  Groups fill out a “charter”, meaning they answer some key questions about what they do, why they do it, what they do and how they do it (their governance, and transparency level). Because all groups do this in the same format, it is easy to compare and understand the function of groups and the role or purpose they play.

Open information sharing like Identity Commons aspires to provide is a public good but essential for ecosystem health. Identity Commons has always had a vision of supporting the collection and aggregation of RSS news feeds from groups and relevant efforts. It also does share some information about events focused on key issues across the groups. There is a community call once a month where the stewards of each group share an update about their past and upcoming activity.

To date this organization has been led by volunteers and what funding has come in has been very small contributions from the main community event, the Internet Identity Workshop. This has limited its ability to fully build out the technical infrastructure and people resources needed to curate this flow of information. To date it has been challenging to find funding mechanisms for organization networks and forms like  that allow them to thrive and fully for fill their purpose.

The NSTIC national program office should consider how information sharing networks systems like this are robust enough to support the level of information sharing and coordination needed for a thriving ecosystem. It may be that the program office can fulfill this role, particularly if also hosting the stakeholder wiki/list. Collecting and aggregating and organizing information flowing to and from these organizations is not governance, but a key public-good role appropriate for government to play in facilitating the emergence of an ecosystem.

Another Answer not in the response above: 

The Internet Identity Workshop is an excellent example of distributed community governance. The community that attends is very aligned around a common purpose making identity technologies that work for people.  The event is the center of innovation around user-centric identity. New ideas are floated there and common problems identified, analyzed and then solutions proposed, refined, often taken to appropriate standards bodies. Code is built and interoperability achieved. Real problems are solved it; is a self-organizing system where good ideas have space to surface, and because of the public open nature, all who have concerns can share them and have them addressed.  It is governed in a peer-to-peer way by the people who attend.  Anyone can post a session, and then people choose which sessions to go to or not. Ideas and technologies that get momentum coming out of the event do so because of their merit, their ability to solve problems.  The community has learned a lot about how to work together effectively and the relationships among the people provide a human fabric of trust that speeds innovation.

1.3. Are there functions of the steering group listed in this Notice that should not be part of the steering group’s activities? Please explain why they are not essential components of Identity Ecosystem Governance. 

According to the NOI, the steering group has many different responsibilities that seem to conflicting (see page 17).  The group must focus first on creating consensus amongst diverse stakeholder groups on the nature of the ecosystem, both how it is now and key aspects of the a future vision that are agreed upon and can be worked towards.

1.4. Are there functions that the steering group must have that are not listed in this notice? How do your suggested governance structures allow for inclusion of these additional functions? 

The steering group should be holding space to support emergence of the ecosystem. The precise role and function of the group will become clear in time as it engages the stakeholders. Both developing shared language and understanding along while mapping a consensus map of the ecosystem. , Stakeholder engagement with World Cafe, Open Space Technology and Creative Insight Councils twill make it clear how the steering group can best serve the emergence of the Identity Ecosystem.

1.5. To what extent does the steering group need to support different sectors differently?

If the initial consensus process is done with many different industries participating both “as a sector” and in multi-sector meetings, then the answer will emerge from those processes.

1.6. How can the steering group effectively set its own policies for all Identity Ecosystem participants without risking conflict with rules set in regulated industries? To what extent can the government mitigate risks associated with this complexity? 

The answer to this question is best dealt with by community of stakeholders using the processes outlined in this response. The community of stakeholders this affects will be able to navigate through this problem if given the chance with the right process and facilitation.

1.7. To what extent can each of the Guiding Principles of the Strategy–interoperability, security, privacy and ease of use—be supported without risking “pull through”1 regulation from regulated participants in the Identity Ecosystem? 

The answer to this question is best dealt with by community of stakeholders using the processes outlined in this response. The community of stakeholders this affects will be able to navigate through this problem if given the chance with the right process and facilitation.

1.8. What are the most important characteristics (e.g., standards and technical capabilities, rulemaking authority, representational structure, etc.) of the steering group? 

Are you trying to support an truly diverse Identity Ecosystem emerging, or build a command and control structure for verified identities?

If you just want the latter, then let the private sector have at it with the “captain of the ship” who will “steer” industry in the right direction. This will lead to a very unbalanced system and strong negative public reaction.

To support the emergence of an ecosystem using structures and processes that are proven to enable self organizing, co-intelligent systems as outlined in the above document are what is needed to cultivate a diverse ecosystem.

Technical standards are made at technical standards bodies very well today this should continue in the future

1.9. How should the government be involved in the steering group at steady state? What are the advantages and disadvantages of different levels of government involvement? 

The government will have an ongoing role to act as an advocate for consumers. It should be supporting the ongoing engagement with people about how the system is serving them.  The advantage to using the methods outlined in the Insight for Governance section is that people from various levels of government can participate in the process.

Steering Group Initiation

In its role of supporting the private sector’s leadership of the Identity Ecosystem, the government’s aim is to accelerate establishment of a steering group that will uphold the Guiding Principles of the Strategy. The government thus seeks comment on the ways in which it can be a catalyst to the establishment of the steering group.

The government should focus its convening power to developed shared language and understanding among stakeholder groups.

2.1. How does the functioning of the steering group relate to the method by which it was initiated? Does the scope of authority depend on the method? What examples are there from each of the broad categories above or from other methods? What are the advantages or disadvantages of different methods? Answered on Page 41

This question leaps to forming a steering group before what is being “steered” is clear to those who have a stake in they system and before they are given time/space to figure out how it should be stewarded.

Understanding the current system(s) is a key first step to understanding how to spin up, to initiate systems to “steer” towards greater interoperability and more coherence across a broad range of identity providers, attribute providers, relying parties and other diverse players while meeting the needs of individuals to manage their context and presentation of self (personae).

Polarity Management and Value Network Mapping and Analysis are two processes I use in my workshop design and facilitation practice. These methods can foster consensus about the current state of the proposed systems that should converge into an ecosystem. participating Stakeholder groups will gain insight into the “goal”: the eventual structure and quality of a thriving Identity Ecosystem. This shared vision will allow many organizations to take their own action appropriate for them based on shared systems insight, and need not involve checking in with the “steering group” to see if they are going the right way.

The steering group by convening these systems level mapping efforts for all to see can “steer” towards the goal without necessarily needing a “steering group” to take that action.

Value Network Mapping and Analysis can address these kinds of questions:

• How do the systems that are envisioned to work together in a broader ecosystem articulated in NSTIC work today?
• What are their roles in these systems?
• How does value flow between roles in the system?
• Do these roles and value flows look very different in different industry sectors?
• What would be needed to make non-interoperable systems more interoperable?
• Is the picture of value flow in a larger, more interoperable ecosystem sustainable?

Polarity Management can address these kinds of questions:

What are the inherent tensions present when doing identity management for people and organizations?

How are these tensions managed today and how could they be effectively managed on a systems level within an identity ecosystem?

2.2. While the steering group will ultimately be private sector-led regardless of how it is established, to what extent does government leadership of the group’s initial phase increase or decrease the likelihood of the Strategy’s success? Answered on Page 47

If government leads by convening conversations of stakeholders rather than by designing the steering group, the creativity and relevance of those conversations will determine NSTIC’s success.

2.3. How can the government be most effective in accelerating the development and ultimate success of the Identity Ecosystem? Answered on Page 47

The NSTIC NPO should, as soon as possible, host a space online where all known/participating stakeholders who want to be listed can be listed.

The starting point for this could be the list that came out of the MIT workshop and the Wikipedia book could be a starting point for their basic information. There should be a simple standard set of information on each organization, including how they see themselves as a stakeholder in NSTIC, what they hope to contribute to it, what they are most concerned about, and what they want to collaborate with other stakeholders on. There might be a matchmaking role that the NSTIC NPO could play, proactively introducing stakeholders to one another so that potentially synergistic collaboration is enabled.

Supporting the stakeholder groups in learning more about one another is very important. One way to do that would be via a 2-3x weekly podcast, perhaps increasing it to a frequency sufficient to interview all known stakeholders.

All major industry conferences that are related to the industry or focus of the organization should be listed on a calendar that has some sophisticated search with queries on cities, dates and industry.  This will help with cross-pollination which is essential right now for the proactive development of shared language and understanding.

There should also be a way for people who are actively working to collaborate to find one another both online and off.  NSTIC can use the list of all the conferences in all industries that are significantly touched by NSTIC as a starting point to encourage/enable “meet-ups” amongst professionals to connect around NSTIC.

• Having a way for people going to a conference to find other interested people on your site, and from there self-organize.
• Contact the program organizer and see when it works to have a meet-up and get it on the program even if Jeremy isn’t going.
• Give people who want to have a BOF at a conference a package of study materials for professionals that the leader can hand out, following with a discussion. Jeremy could also make a video inviting people to participate.
• Encourage cross-pollination between industries. One way might be to pick a conference in a particular city. Organize the professionals from within the conference and the local interested professionals from a broader range of industries to meet up (perhaps for dinner).

If this sort of informal connecting, socialization and learning is happening, then there should be a way for interested professionals to report back from the meeting, post notes, record a video, send in a diagram.  This could create some interesting cross-stakeholder conversations.

Socialization of NSTIC in IT professional communities is very important right now, because they are going to need to know something about this when it becomes time to socialize NSTIC with the public.  They also can be a pool of not-directly-involved stakeholders to be tapped to participate in things like the Community Insight Council.

Answered on Page 47

By quickly convening stakeholders in the mapping processes and in parallel, hosting-well designed, adequately inclusive, and wisdom-generating conversations using the methods outlined in this section.  It must ensure that the charter that creates the steering group    does not just articulate how it is formed, but also that it must convene regular meaningful stakeholder engagement processes to ensure broad public confidence, legitimacy, and ultimately trust in the Identity Ecosystem.

2.4. Do certain methods of establishing the steering group create greater risks to the Guiding Principles? What measures can best mitigate those risks? What role can the government play to help to ensure the Guiding Principles are upheld? 

Answered on Page 47

Failure to engage all parties in productive conversations will endanger the Guiding Principles, because all the interacting factors will not be sufficiently taken into account, increasing the chance that blind spots and biases will shape the outcomes.

2.5. What types of arrangements would allow for both an initial government role and, if initially led by the government, a transition to private sector leadership in the steering group? If possible, please give examples of such arrangements and their positive and negative attributes. Answered on Page 48

Government-convened conversations will enable a transition to private sector leadership, making sure that this includes an institutionalized principle of inclusion that reduces the chances any sector will unduly bias the evolution of the ecosystem.

Representation of Stakeholders in the Steering Group

3.1. What should the make-up of the steering group look like? What is the best way to engage organizations playing each role in the Identity Ecosystem, including individuals?  

As I said in the above response the most important take away is defining the role of the steering group to be one of stewarding and holding space for the broader range of stakeholders to feed back into the system and take action based on their recommendations. With this structure, the group itself does not “hold power” and the organizations and individuals playing a role in the ecosystem participate in those processes.

3.2. How should interested entities that do not directly participate in the Identity Ecosystem receive representation in the steering group? 

The most important take away is defining the role of the steering group to be one of stewarding and holding space for the broader range of stakeholders to  feed back into the system and take action based on their recommendations. With this structure, the group itself does not “hold power” and the organizations and individuals playing a role in the ecosystem participate in those processes.

3.3. What does balanced representation mean and how can it be achieved? What steps can be taken guard against disproportionate influence over policy formulation?

From Page 47

Of course, the number of sectors, organizations and reps could be adjusted in a variety of ways.  My effort was to limit the size of the steering committee to increase its efficiency, while making it hard for adversarial power centers to battle and dominate, due to the open nonlinear (and thus hard to control) elements I've injected into the voting process and the subsequent conversational protocols.

The power held by the steering group is real, but limited by the conversational context of its operations. The ability of any one entity in the ecosystem to skew outcomes is limited by the equalizing and randomizing factors put in place.  In the system as specified here, there is far more motivation to seek solutions that integrate one's own needs with those of others than there is to seek solutions that benefit oneself at the expense of others.

I think these are better questions to ask and they are on page 44

How does the steering group incorporate a broad range of stakeholder perspectives? In particular, how does it incorporate the perspectives of regular people from very diverse backgrounds and life stages who are doing transactions in the Identity Ecosystem as it evolves?

How is legitimacy earned from the many organized stakeholder “groups”? but also from regular people?

Legitimacy of the NSTIC steering group will emerge when a broad range of stakeholders, even those with “opposing” views, are following recommendations and working together towards the development of a coherent Identity Ecosystem. How can this happen? What processes could significantly increase the likelihood of this emergent property of legitimacy emerges?

The answer lies in not having the members of the “steering group” itself (using a combination of their points of view) be the origin of the “steering”. It should be a group that serves as a steward of and coordinator of proven systemic dialogue processes that regularly engage a wide range of stakeholders.  The steering group takes action and makes recommendations based on the clarity and wisdom surfaced via regular, systematized stakeholder engagement online and offline. This section outlines a proposal of how this could work.

3.4 Should there be a fee for representatives in the steering group? Are there appropriate tiered systems for fees that will prevent “pricing out” organizations, including individuals?

The steering group should be funded by the government and by companies in the ecosystem. Individuals and nonprofits should be active participants in the community.

3.5. Other than fees, are there other means to maintain a governance body in the long term? If possible, please give examples of existing structures and their positive and negative attributes. One could charge nominal fees to recover costs at participatory events.

3.6 Should all members have the same voting rights on all issues, or should voting rights be adjusted to favor those most impacted by a decision? Answered on Page 36

Voting is not really the right process to get consensus. Instead we can ask: are there ways to understand and know system health that support self-regulating, distributed decision making by a range of stakeholders to achieve the goal of making an ecosystem with the qualities articulated in NSTIC real?

From Page 46

How is the Steering Group Composed?

If the purpose of the group is to hold space for the broad range of stakeholders to share insights, then it will be a far less “political body”. It is important to have a body that is diverse, but the mandate to listen and respond to the overall ecosystem makes it not “about” the members having the power to decide how to steer for all the stakeholders of the ecosystem because they were elected as their “representatives”, but rather their mandate is to convene periodic stakeholder conversations with well tested proven methodologies and to act on the recommendations and insights they generate.

The power held by the steering group is real, but limited by the conversational context of its operations. The ability of any one entity in the ecosystem to skew outcomes is limited by the equalizing and randomizing factors I've put in place.  In the system as set up, there is far more motivation to seek solutions that integrate one's own needs with those of others than there is to seek solutions that benefit oneself at the expense of others.

3.7. How can appropriately broad representation within the steering group be ensured? To what extent and in what ways must the Federal government, as well as State, local, tribal, territorial, and foreign governments be involved at the outset?

The suggested structures and processes in this response can be very inclusive of a broad range of stakeholders, including running sessions about the issues faced in ecosystem evolution by state, local, tribal, and territorial governments.

International

4.1. How should the structure of the steering group address international perspectives, standards, policies, best practices, etc? 

The suggested structures and processes in this response can be very inclusive of the international community of stakeholders, including running sessions about the issues faced in ecosystem evolution in other countries.

4.2. How should the steering group coordinate with other international entities (e.g., standards and policy development organizations, trade organizations, foreign governments)? Yes. Standards should be developed in the appropriate international standards bodies.

4.3. On what international entities should the steering group focus its attention and activities?  IETF, W3C and OASIS.

4.4. How should the steering group maximize the Identity Ecosystem’s interoperability internationally?  It should use international standards.

4.5. What is the Federal government’s role in promoting international cooperation within the Identity Ecosystem?

It should be a leader in convening the necessary community engagement to develop shared language and understanding leading to cooperation. If it does this, then share maps of the ecosystem landscape of challenges and opportunities reflected in the role/value and polarity maps. These will naturally lead to increased potential for collaboration because there will be a shared picture on which to build effective cooperation.

This post is from pages 57-66 of Kaliya's NSTIC Governance NOI Response - please see this page for the overview and links to the rest of the posts. Here is a link to the PDF.

This is the section before: Structure of the Steering Group

This is the section after: Planetwork Link Tank

1.1. Given the Guiding Principles outlined in the Strategy, what should be the structure of the steering group? What structures can support the technical, policy, legal, and operational aspects of the Identity Ecosystem without stifling innovation?

A systems approach must be taken using methodologies for structure and process that are holistic and adaptive over time.  They must provide insight into the overall function and health of the ecosystem and give people who are leading organizations within the ecosystem a clear picture of where to intervene, how to adjust their behavior/actions relative to the players and for the overall good of the system. It must support new innovation while at the same time addressing new security threats and risks and be adaptive to social and cultural changes.

2.1. How does the functioning of the steering group relate to the method by which it was initiated? Does the scope of authority depend on the method? What examples are there from each of the broad categories above or from other methods? What are the advantages or disadvantages of different methods?

Understanding the current system(s) is a key first step to understanding how to spin up, to initiate systems to “steer” towards greater interoperability and more coherence across a broad range of identity providers, attribute providers, relying parties and other diverse players, while meeting the needs of individuals to manage their context and presentation of self (personae).

Polarity Management and Value Network Mapping and Analysis are two processes I have in my workshop design and facilitation practice.These methods can foster consensus about the current state of the systems that are proposed should converge into an ecosystem. Stakeholder groups participating will gain insight into the “goal” the eventual structure and quality of a thriving Identity Ecosystem. This shared vision will allow many organizations to take their own action appropriate for them based on shared systems insight and need not involve checking in with the “steering group” to see if they are going the right way.

The steering group by convening these systems level mapping efforts for all to see, thus “steers” towards the goal without necessarily needing a “steering group” to take that action.

Value Network Mapping and Analysis can address these kinds of questions:

• How do the systems that are envisioned to work together in a broader ecosystem articulated in NSTIC work today?
• What are their roles in these systems?
• How does value flow between roles in the system?
• Do these roles and value flows look very different in different industry sectors?
• What would be needed to make non-interoperable systems more interoperable?
• Is the picture of value flow in a larger, more interoperable ecosystem sustainable?

Polarity Management can address these kinds of questions:

What are the inherent tensions present when doing identity management for people and organizations?

How are these tensions managed today and how could they be effectively managed on a systems level within an identity ecosystem?

2.3. How can the government be most effective in accelerating the development and ultimate success of the Identity Ecosystem?

The government can be most effective in accelerating the development and ultimate success of the Identity Ecosystem by fostering shared understanding, and with that, broadly accepted consensus answers by a range of stakeholder groups to these questions listed above. With these shared, collaboratively developed understandings, ecosystem governance process and structures will become clear.  Both of these methods should be led in parallel by the NSTIC Program office and involve stakeholders via face to face and online sharing of iterative outputs as the processes unfold. Both could be completed by the end of this calendar year.

This post is from pages 41-42 of Kaliya's NSTIC Governance NOI Response - please see this page for the overview and links to the rest of the posts. Here is a link to the PDF.

This is the section before: Missing Questions about NSTIC Governance

This is the section after: NSTIC NOI Questions

Many questions were missing from the governance NOI. I answered the first three ones explicitly in my response.

Is there currently shared language amongst the identified NSTIC stakeholders?

Answered on Page 12

No. I participated in both the NSTIC governance and privacy workshops in June and did not find there was shared understanding or language amongst stakeholders gathered. I did experience shared language and understanding with the people who I knew from the user-centric identity community (and its neighbors) but there are many new stakeholder groups that I was unfamiliar with and I found in many conversations that people were talking past each other constantly.  This experience of not having shared language was one of the reasons the breakout group conversations were not productive and many experienced frustration.

Is there currently shared understanding and alignment amongst the identified NSTIC stakeholders? Answered on Page 18

No. I often find myself squirming while listening to fellow NSTIC stakeholders articulate their ideas about what we are doing with NSTIC. I imagine with all the comments I have made from a user-advocacy perspective that others have squirmed when I have spoken. Because I feel myself squirming often and I see others squirming too, I know there is limited shared understanding amongst NSTIC stakeholders.

What processes and structures are needed to meet the goals of NSTIC? 

Answered on Page 19

Governance structures, process and methodologies developed in the last 25 years that use  whole-systems sensing, listening, insight and direction finding, will be needed to meet these requirements and make the NSTIC vision real. Some of them are outlined in the Insight to Governance section below.

How does the steering group incorporate a broad range of stakeholder perspectives? In particular, how does it incorporate the perspectives of regular people from very diverse backgrounds and life stages who are doing transactions in the Identity Ecosystem as it evolves?  

How is legitimacy earned from the many organized stakeholder “groups”? but also from regular people? Answered on Page 44

Legitimacy of the NSTIC steering group will emerge when a broad range of stakeholders, even those with “opposing” views, are following recommendations and working together towards the development of a coherent Identity Ecosystem. How can this happen? What processes could significantly increase the likelihood of this emergent property of legitimacy emerges?

The answer lies in not having the members of the “steering group” itself (using a combination of their points of view) be the origin of the “steering”. It should be a group that serves as a steward of and coordinator of proven systemic dialogue processes that regularly engage a wide range of stakeholders.  The steering group takes action and makes recommendations based on the clarity and wisdom surfaced via regular, systematized stakeholder engagement online and offline. This section outlines a proposal of how this could work.

How can the NSTIC NPO facilitate the emergence of consensus amongst stakeholders?   

The initial consensus can be developed among diverse stakeholders using the systems mapping tools described in the previous section. Consensus will not be on “the solution to the problems”, but on the polarities inherent in the system and a shared map of the roles and value flows in the existing and in the proposed ecosystem.  These will support effective dialogues that don’t just go in circles but actually get at how the system is not working from the perspectives of various stakeholders as it evolves and provide some tools to discern actions to improve the situations arising.

What processes and structures are not likely to achieve the goals of NSTIC?

Top down, hierarchical, mechanistically understood systems and processes. There can be no “captain” of the ship. The web and the identity system with in it are complex adaptive systems and processes and structures that are in alignment with that form of organization.

How can shared language and understanding be developed by such a wide range of stakeholders?

This process can be largely organic and “naturally organizing” as it was with the original Identity Gang (although certain people did play a catalytic role like myself, Doc Searls, Phil Windley, the guys at Digital Identity World and Kim Cameron).

It can also be speeded up with the strategic choice of tools that engage the community in exercises that build shared language and lead to understanding.

Is there really private sector motivation to implement privacy processing technologies like U-Prove and IDMix that provide verified anonymity?  

Currently I don’t think so. Tools that are good for people when they don’t want to have activity linked together  are not being supported in the market. This is because they use the same OpenID URL or e-mail address all over the web and the sites can then find other sites they have used. None of the large identity providers or web browsers have any tools that help people manage de-linking of activity. The current proposals for BrowserID would broadcast an e-mail address of the user to all sites they visit.

How nature “governs” thriving ecosystems of diverse organisms?

How are the services that we think of as “identity management” done in nature? 

How are networks facilitated so that information flows in trusted ways?

These should be answered in collaboration with natural systems and biomimicry experts (see Appendix 4).

This post is from pages 73-76 of Kaliya's NSTIC Governance NOI Response - please see this page for the overview and links to the rest of the posts. Here is a link to the PDF.

This is the section before: Summary of NSTIC NOI response

This is the section after: Structure of the Steering Group

The authors of the NSTIC document went to great lengths to get input form a wide range of stakeholders. The draft document they released last summer provided an opportunity to give feedback, giving an excellent starting point to bring people with very different core motivations and concerns together. The choice to name the big picture vision an Identity Ecosystem informs the choice of processes and structures appropriate to govern it.

User-Centric Community Success

In 2005-6 the Identity Gang /user-centric identity community was one tenth the size of the current NSTIC stakeholder community. It took us a year of active grassroots effort to develop the common language and shared understanding necessary to collaborate. NSTIC doesn’t have 5-10 years to coalesce a community that can collaborate to build the Identity Ecosystem Framework. To make the vision real, people who are from these different points of perspectives must become more aligned, to have a shared understanding.

How to Create Shared Language and Understanding

The NPO should continue using its convening power (both online and face-to-face) to keep fostering the dialogues necessary to have shared language understanding emerge.  That will create a momentum to create the conditions for high-performance collaboration amongst the stakeholder community.

Using methods such as Value Network Mapping and Polarity Mapping will increase the shared language and understanding. With just a few staff, the NPO could host many focused meetings with stakeholders around the country and at industry events throughout the fall.  The community of NSTIC stakeholders will be able to organize a thriving ecosystem because there will actually be shared language, understanding amongst NSTIC stakeholders by January.

Help Stakeholders Learn About and Find One Another

The starting point for this could be the list that came out of the MIT workshop and the Wikipedia book. There should be a simple standard set of information on each organization, including how they see themselves as a stakeholder in NSTIC, what they hope to contribute to it, what they are most concerned about, and what they want to collaborate with other stakeholders on. There might be a matchmaking role that the NSTIC NPO could play, proactively introducing stakeholders to one another so that potentially synergistic collaboration is enabled.

Supporting the stakeholder groups in learning more about one another is very important. One way to do that would be via a 2-3x weekly podcast, perhaps increasing it to a frequency sufficient to interview all known stakeholders.

All major conferences within the stokehold industries should be listed on a searchable calendar.  This will help with cross-pollination, which is essential right now for the proactive development of shared language and understanding.

There should also be a way for people who are actively working to collaborate to find one another both online and off.  NSTIC can use the conference calendar to encourage/enable “meet-ups” among stakeholders.

Socialization of NSTIC in IT professional communities is essential. These people need to understand it when it becomes time to socialize NSTIC with the public.  They also can be a pool of not-directly-involved stakeholders to be tapped to participate in things like the Community Insight Council.

Measure Shared Understanding

When a diverse group of NSTIC stakeholders are passing the squirm test (page 15), then real collaboration is possible and it will make sense to “spin up” a steering group because there will be broad alignment within the group.

Foster Accountability Frameworks

Trust is absolutely essential in the Identity Ecosystem. People must trust that the information they share will be handled with care, respect and human dignity. This is achieved by having real accountability in the system around the user’s rights. When the system is functioning well and accountability frameworks are followed, then overall systems behavior of the Identity Ecosystem will be trustworthy.

Public Legitimacy is Key to Success

The processes around ecosystem development must also be very open to engender public trust. The NPO must work with industry to develop a strategy for public engagement and socialization.

Release Control to a Diverse Stakeholder Group

If the NPO rushes to set up a steering group before this kind of shared understanding is present in the private sector, large companies who host or provide the identifiers on digital networks used by millions of people (in the US and around the world) will lead it in their own way, primarily as a vendor driven trade association. They have no inherent incentive to create inclusive space, or incorporate key aspects of the strategy like maintaining civil liberties that seem difficult or expensive.

The NPO needs to lead in creating the space for:

• The private sector with the many different industries
• Nonprofit and advocacy groups
• Small and medium sized businesses
• Most importantly, the average citizen

Once the the stakeholders are collaborating using the shared language and understanding,  the government can “let go” and just be a participant in evolving the Identity Ecosystem.

This post is from pages 51-54 of Kaliya's NSTIC Governance NOI Response - please see this page for the overview and links to the rest of the posts. Here is a link to the PDF.

This is the section before: The Importance of Public Legitimacy

This is the section after: Missing Questions about NSTIC Governance

Stakeholder Engagement with Dialogue and Deliberation

Co-Authored with Tom Attlee, Director of the Co-Intelligence Institute

The NSTIC governance NOI highlights the government’s role should be in an ongoing way to protect people’s interests. I invited Tom Attlee to co-author this section with me because of his 10+ years of research into a whole range of inclusive citizen engagement processes. The Tao of Democracy is his book that looks at how the best of them effectively synthesize the people’s perspective on whether their interests are being protected well enough.

I worked with Tom Attlee in 2006 to explore which emerging electronic collaborative tools (blogs, wikis, online forums etc.) could be used to augment and complement proven deliberative processes that were developed before the web existed (chart in Appendix 6). They have proven very effective, but also expensive and labor intensive. Based on this work with Tom, I wrote a chapter in the Personal Democracy Forum book Rebooting America on how these methods could be used to gain democratic insight that is deeper then from voting or polling. (text Appendix 5)

The authors of NSTIC did a good job of bringing forward clear overarching principles and guidelines for the development of an ecosystem.  Naming these guidelines and principles is a great starting point; they are in alignment with citizen’s people’s interest. Turning to the “private sector” (inclusive of advocacy groups and civil society) to encourage the further development of accountability frameworks and networks is good.  Clearly there are many private sector uses for more trusted identities, and the government can make use of them too.

There are currently many uncertainties about the market viability of technologies that provide verified anonymity. Dr. Stefan Brand’s U-Prove technology has been around so long that the patent has almost expired. It has been involved with four startups before it was acquired by Microsoft. They have opened up the technology under the Open Specification Promise, even releasing code.  The OASIS IMI standard is based on the work of Kim Cameron and the ideas of Information Cards being tokens for individuals to manage the sharing of claims using software agents on their machines. It looks like none of these technologies will get commercial support or be deployed.

The private sector has found that these technologies either reduce costs or increase revenue. In fact they increase costs (user ID systems and logins must be changed at great expense) and reduce revenue. For example, a publishing site not knowing a user’s ID (e-mail address or URL) that can be looked up at Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google, Yahoo!, etc. means they can’t know enough about the user to effectively target ads at them.

To make the vision presented in NSTIC real, deeper insight, consensus, collaboration and innovation is needed.

However taking on the responsibility of a whole ecosystem requires this group having broad insight into how the ecosystem is growing, evolving, working and earning legitimacy from stakeholder groups and the people with identities who are using the system.

As highlighted above, the number of self-identified stakeholder groups already exceeds 75 and could conceivably include every individual on the planet that uses digital networks.  So the questions are:

How does the steering group incorporate a broad range of stakeholder perspectives? In particular, how does it incorporate the perspectives of regular people from very diverse backgrounds and life stages (see Appendix 3) who are doing transactions in the Identity Ecosystem as it evolves?

How is legitimacy earned, from the many organized stakeholder “groups”, but also from regular people?

Legitimacy of the NSTIC steering group will emerge when a broad range of stakeholders, even those with “opposing” views, are following recommendations and working together towards the development of a coherent Identity Ecosystem. How can this happen? What processes could significantly increase the likelihood of this emergent property of legitimacy?

The answer lies in not having the members of the “steering group” itself be the origin of the “steering” from their perspective. It should be a group that is serving as a steward of and coordinator of proven systemic dialogue processes that regularly engage a wide range of stakeholders.  The steering group takes action and makes recommendation based on the clarity and wisdom surfaced from regular, systematized stakeholder engagement online and offline. This section outlines a proposal of how this could work.

What does the Steering group do?

1. convenes periodic (at minimum every 6 months) stakeholder conversations (which include but are larger than the steering group) to get input on how the Identity Ecosystem Framework is working,
2. publicizes the recommendations and their status to the stakeholder community using online tools and collaborative platforms that invite response from stakeholder individuals and groups.
3. adopts the recommendations of those conversations (or explains in detail why they cannot).

The steering group ensures that participants in subsequent periodic stakeholder conversations have read or are adequately briefed on the previous period's comments in the online stakeholder forums.

We suggest a twice-a-year Creative Insight Council (CIC) of 36 participants with six members randomly chosen from selection pools of each of the six primary stakeholder groups: government, business, academia, standards development and technical organizations, consumer representatives, and privacy and civil liberties advocates .

Ideally, from the CIC on alternate quarters there would be

• a open World Cafe of all stakeholders (potentially up to 450 people) who wished to participate
• an Open Space unconference (similar to the Internet Identity Workshop) of all stakeholders who wished to participate, with the results of both posted for public/stakeholder review.

These three processes (CIC, OST, TWC) allow both a 2x/year rigorous microcosm conversation with coherent recommendations AND two broadly participatory creative conversations open to any and all interested people that allow for innovations to surface, provide systems, and create coherence.

With some experimentation, these methods could be complemented with some online components; however at their core, they must remain face to face processes. To ensure their legitimacy and the inclusion of a broad range of perspectives (diverse geography, financial ability, etc.) compensation could be provided to regular citizens for participation in, for example, an Insight Council or Citizens Jury.

Engaging international stakeholders and people in the Identity Ecosystem living outside the United States may involve hosting or convening dialogues outside the US. There are efforts that are somewhat similar around the world and it may be possible for those efforts to also adopt these processes, and results could be shared.

Assumptions in this proposal:

1. The best way to (a) formulate and administer good evolving policy and standards for the ecosystem and (b) engage the voluntary cooperation of all players in the ecosystem on an ongoing basis is to periodically involve the full spectrum of stakeholders in co-creating each iteration of that policy and those standards.
2. Effective co-creation requires conversation among a full spectrum of the players to ensure all angles are adequately addressed and to stimulate creativity to deal with divergences among their diverse interests and perspectives.  To the extent this inclusive conversational work is not done, whatever was not adequately addressed in the policy and standards formulation will come back to disrupt the ecosystem.

1. Each iteration of policy and standards will produce unexpected consequences and opportunities which will need to be collectively noticed and dealt with in a timely way for the ecosystem to thrive; thus the need for iterative engagement of all the players.  This is a form of collective intelligence to monitor the ongoing evolution of the Identity Ecosystem.

• To accomplish these ends, the conversational processes and facilitation used must move beyond simply allowing all participants to speak but must also

1. successfully engage the creativity of the group and all its members;
2. successfully use differences and conflicts as grist for that creativity; and
3. help the group satisfy its goals and expectations without controlling the conversation or pre-determining outcomes.

These requirements allow unforeseen problems, solutions, and possibilities to emerge and be addressed by the group, thus further reducing the chance of ill-conceived or inadequate policy results.  Among the processes that serve this purpose well are Dynamic Facilitation, Open Space, and The World Cafe.

How is the Steering Group Composed? and What Processes does it use 

If the purpose of the group is to hold space for the broad range of stakeholders to share insights, then it will be a far less “political body”. It is important to have a body that is diverse, but the mandate to listen and respond to the overall ecosystem makes it not “about” the members having the power to decide how to steer for all the stakeholders of the ecosystem because they were elected as their “representatives”, but rather their mandate is to convene periodic stakeholder conversations with well-tested proven methodologies and to act on the recommendations and insights they generate.

Since the NSTIC NOI asks respondents to directly answer this question, I am sure there will be many answers. Any number of steering group formations could work for this proposal to have its main function be effective stakeholder convening that surface issues.

Our proposal for a steering group is a stakeholder body made up of two representatives from each of the six main stakeholder groups elected by members of their stakeholder groups by nomination, instant-runoff voting, two-year terms (with the highest initial vote-getter in each stakeholder category having a 3-year term so that annual turnover is not total) and recall elections.

The primary stakeholder categories are:

• government,
• business,
• academia,
• standards development and technical organizations,
• consumer representatives, and
• privacy and civil liberties advocates
• other additional appropriate groups

The steering group also includes two members chosen at random from a pool of public volunteers.  Their decisions should be by supermajority. The relatively small size of the steering group (14 people) increases their operational efficiency, while the conversational and input systems described below maximize the inclusivity, depth, and effectiveness of their management capacity.

Other Possible Options for the Steering Group

Suppose each time a vote is taken, only half of the 14 people vote , picked from the group by random selection immediately before the vote is taken. In other words, only seven of the members (in my existing model) would vote on each decision, and it would be a different (unpredictable) seven each time. (This is similar to the story of the mother dealing with her kids arguing over who gets the biggest piece of pie; she has one kid cut the pie and the other one pick the first slice.)  Since none of them know which of them is going to be empowered to vote next time, it is in their interests not to screw each other this time, and to support a process that helps them find solutions they can all buy into (like dynamic facilitation or a process that focuses on explicitly asking for and handling concerns).

Processes and Structures for Distributing Power and Ecosystem Evolution

Of course the number of sectors, organizations and reps could be adjusted in a variety of ways.  My effort was to limit the size of the steering committee to increase its efficiency, while making it hard for adversarial power centers to battle and dominate, due to the open nonlinear (i.e., hard to control) elements I've injected into the voting process and the subsequent conversational protocols.

The power held by the steering group is real, but limited by the conversational context of its operations. The ability of any one entity in the ecosystem to skew outcomes is limited by the equalizing and randomizing factors put in place.  In the system as specified here, there is FAR more motivation to seek solutions that integrate one's own needs with those of others than there is to seek solutions that benefit oneself at the expense of others.

Some Answers to NSTIC governance NOI Questions

2.2. While the steering group will ultimately be private sector-led regardless of how it is established, to what extent does government leadership of the group’s initial phase increase or decrease the likelihood of the Strategy’s success?

If government leads by convening conversations of stakeholders rather than designing the steering group, the creativity and relevance of those conversations will determine NSTIC’s success.

2.3. How can the government be most effective in accelerating the development and ultimate success of the Identity Ecosystem?

By quickly convening stakeholders in the mapping processes outlined in the prior section and in parallel hosting well designed, adequately inclusive, and wisdom-generating conversations using the methods outlined in this section.  It must ensure that the charter that creates the steering group    does not just articulate how it is formed but also that it must convene regular meaningful stakeholder engagement processes to ensure broad public confidence, legitimacy and ultimately trust in the Identity Ecosystem.

2.4. Do certain methods of establishing the steering group create greater risks to the Guiding Principles? What measures can best mitigate those risks? What role can the government play to help to ensure the Guiding Principles are upheld?

Failure to engage all parties in productive conversations will endanger the Guiding Principles, because all the interacting factors will be insufficiently taken into account, increasing the chance that blind spots and biases will shape the outcomes.

2.5. What types of arrangements would allow for both an initial government role and, if initially led by the government, a transition to private sector leadership in the steering group? If possible, please give examples of such arrangements and their positive and negative attributes.

Government-convened conversations will enable a transition to private sector leadership, making sure that this includes an institutionalized principle of inclusion that reduces the chances any sector will unduly bias the evolution of the ecosystem.

Processes to be utilized by the Steering Group 

Dynamic Facilitation (DF)

Dynamic Facilitation (http://tobe.net) is a powerful nonlinear creative process designed to use the group's diversity, conflicts and potential co-creativity and sense-making capacities to generate breakthrough solutions to intractable problems.  It is based on several deep dynamics of individual psychology and group functioning:

• a.  When people feel truly and fully heard, they tend to become less defensive, less assertive, and more open to the views of others and to novel possibilities.
• b.  When all perspectives are respectfully collected into a whole, a picture of the situation is revealed that is both more messy and more comprehensive than the initial perspective of any individual participant.
• c.  If all participants have been truly and fully heard, their collective response to the messiness of their collective "map" of the situation is to try making collective sense of THAT -- i.e., to find a solution that includes or transcends all their individual perspectives.

As part of the DF process, disagreements and conflicts are legitimized as "concerns" and are duly heard and recorded by the facilitator.  Furthermore, any statement of a concern or articulation of the problem, once fully heard, is followed by a question like "What do you think should be done about that?", giving the whole process a solution-seeking vector.  Taken as a whole, the entire process constitutes one of the most powerfully creative conflict-digesting processes available.

Creative Insight Council (CIC)

A Creative Insight Council (http://www.tobe.net/DF/DF/page52/page52.html) is a small, legitimately representative microcosm of a community or stakeholder system that uses Dynamic Facilitation to help participants and others grow toward a more systemic understanding of the issues involved, by listening deeply to the various perspectives reflected in the group.  As needed, a Creative Insight Council can draw upon the specialized knowledge of experts, outside stakeholders or leaders. However, instead of “lecturing,” these experts present their views within the context of a dynamically facilitated conversation.

Open Space Technology (OST)

Open Space Technology (http://www.unconference.net) is a simple process through which a gathering of people passionate about some subject or concerned about some situation can self-organize to talk about and/or take action on that topic. It is the main process used in the Internet Identity Workshop. Participants originate, announce, and post breakout sessions with titles of their choosing and, when all sessions are announced, work out their own individual participation schedules.  Session times and locations are standardized but fully flexible, and participant meandering among sessions or not attending any sessions at all is fully legitimized (deemed productive).

Session conveners take responsibility for making sure some notes are taken and turned in for publication to the entire group.  The whole group gathers at the beginning and end of each day's activities for sharing news and experiences.  The chaos that results from this process is, in fact, surprisingly orderly and, perhaps most importantly, very energized and productive, regularly producing significant insights, new collaborations, and unforeseen possibilities.  It is a potent tool for "covering the ground" of a complex topic, evoking useful responses to a shared inquiry, and assisting the players in a complex situation to self-organize into more productive roles.  If done over multiple days, the iterative dynamics (issues arising in one day being addressed during subsequent days) tend to process the material at an increasingly deep and creative level.

The World Cafe (TWC)

The World Cafe (http://www.theworldcafe.com/) can engage dozens or thousands of people in productive conversation on a topic of shared interest over several hours or days.  TWC is set up like a cafe with 3-5 people at each of many small tables, usually with paper tablecloths and writing materials for taking notes, sometimes flowers.  This familiar setting itself facilitates the desired spirit of conversation.

The shared topic is framed as a question (powerful question design being a specialty of TWC practitioners) which participants discuss with each other for 20-60 minutes in each of several timed conversational rounds.  When each round ends, participants mix and move to other tables so that in each round they are talking with different people.  As each round starts, participants are encouraged to share with their new tablemates highlights from their conversation in previous rounds.  Their question may remain the same in subsequent rounds, or change to guide the conversation to new or deeper territory.  In final rounds, participants are usually encouraged to seek together deeper patterns in the topic being explored.

TWC concludes with a "harvesting" process in which individuals can share insights or developments with the whole group.  TWC by design provides each member of a large group considerable airtime and opportunity to interact in a small group, while simultaneously ensuring that good ideas get spread around and processed by the whole group.  Quite often significant new ideas and possibilities emerge out of TWC's complex, randomly organized iterative dynamics.

Using These Processes

Dynamic Facilitation, Open Space and The World Cafe can all be convened outside of any decision-making process, simply as powerful forms of public/stakeholder engagement.  However, within the context of a decision-making effort, all three are best viewed not as decision-making processes themselves, but as forms of dialogue that facilitate deeper group understanding and creativity prior to the formal decision-making process (e.g., voting).  That said, good solutions often become so obvious in the dialogue process that voting becomes a formality to record the emerged consensus.

There are many other processes that could be used to gain insight from the community of directly engaged stakeholders and engage the larger public. The National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation Resource Guide on Public Engagement is one of the best resources for considering options (several pages from this guide are excerpted in appendix 7) .

Polarity Management:

Section co-authored with Barry Johnson and Jake Johnson

Polarities

Natural systems thrive when polarities are in dynamic balance - breathing in and out is a polarity humans leverage moment to moment. At the same time, we must attend to more than our Inhaling and Exhaling. We must attend to where the oxygen comes from and where the carbon dioxide goes. Paying attention to polarities within a part of the system is important to sustain life and, it is not enough. The part must also pay attention to the other parts and the whole for its own survival.With any polarity, it is always in the long-term interest of each pole to take care of both poles.

The Part and Whole polarity is available to be leveraged at every level of system. The individual cell in an organ; an organ in an organism; or, an organism in a larger community. We are talking about the development an Identity Ecosystem as a human techno-social systems ecosystem where polarities need to be leveraged. It seems appropriate as a way to gain insight and agreed upon signs of systems health to identify key polarities with stakeholders and monitor how well they are being leveraged over time. This ongoing assessment allows for informed self-correction as part of the dynamic balancing of the polarities in response to changing circumstances.

Polarities in the Strategy

The NSTIC Document clearly articulated many inherent tensions - polarities that exist when considering the formation of an identity ecosystem. This expression of polarities was one reason it was so well received by such a broad range of stakeholders. These stakeholders reflect different points of view relative to some key polarities. Those with perspectives that are on opposite ends of a polarity could see their point of view reflected in the outline of the broad vision. To make a ecosystem function the vision must be grounded and the tensions leveraged in service of each stakeholder group and the whole ecosystem.

Mapping the key polarities and getting broad stakeholder agreement on how to leverage them creates a process and structure to successfully negotiate the tensions between “opposing” stakeholder groups. It is also possible to assess how effectively a list of key polarities are being leveraged. This can be done by an unlimited number of people who only need to have access to the internet. The results can be broken down by any combination of demographics built into the assessment at the front end. The assessment also includes “Action Steps” and “Early Warnings” created with the stakeholders which support the effective leveraging of the key polarities.

When a polarity that we actually need to leverage, is instead treated as if it is a problem that we need to solve, those favoring different poles get into a power struggle over which pole will dominate. This leads to a vicious cycle in which everyone looses. The system looses first as energy is wasted in the either/or fight between the two poles. The system looses, again, when one side wins, because the result is to also get the downside of the “winners’” pole. Then the system looses, yet again, when it actually finds itself with the downside of both poles.

On the other hand, when a polarity is identified as a polarity, it is possible to leverage both poles in a way that creates a virtuous cycle supporting both poles and the system as a whole. This is why it is important to be able to identify and leverage key polarities in the systems we want to work.

Here is a list of Polarities reflected in the NSTIC document and named in the governance NOI:

Developing Polarity Maps work for the Identity Ecosystem 

Proven Process for Leveraging Polarities: See, Map, and Tap.

A sub set of stakeholders would be involved in each step of the process. Once a draft assessment has been developed by the sub set of stakeholders, a much broader group of stakeholders will have the opportunity to experience and modify the draft assessment as a final step in confirming the final assessment.

See: The sub set of stakeholders gather and identify 4-8 of the most critical polarities that need to be managed for a healthy identity ecosystem.

Map: Each of the identified polarities are mapped which is a values and language clarification process. Agreement is reached on the positive (upsides) of each pole and the negative (downsides) of each pole which occurs when you over-focus on one pole to the neglect of the other pole. A Greater Purpose Statement (GPS) is agreed upon which responds to the question: “Why should groups invested in one pole generate a shared polarity map with groups invested in the other pole?” Then a Deeper Fear is also identified which a common fear of something advocates for each pole want to avoid. This completes a polarity map.

Tap: Ideas are generated for how to gain or maintain the upsides of each pole. This is done through Action Steps in support of each upside. Ideas are also generated for Early Warnings that let you know when you are getting into the downside of a pole so that you can self-correct early.

The objective is to create a virtuous cycle between the two poles in which you maximize the upsides of each pole and minimize the downsides. When this is done well, the system is more likely to thrive and move toward the Greater Purpose agreed to by all stakeholders.

Example of leveraging a polarity with the Deputy CIO at the DOD:

When Dave Wennergren was the CIO for the Navy, he learned about Polarity Management® through Frew and Associates working with Barry Johnson. When he moved to the position of Deputy CIO for the DOD, he noticed a chronic tension everywhere he went as he was exploring information issues within the DOD. Some were strong advocates for Information Security. Others were strong advocates for Information Sharing.

See: Wennergren saw this tension as a polarity he could leverage rather than a problem he needed to solve. The polarity is Information Sharing and Information Security.

Map: He invited Barry Frew and Barry Johnson to map this polarity with him and his executive team.

Tap: After completing the map, they created Action Steps and Early Warnings in order to be intentional about going after both upsides and minimizing both downsides. The office of the CIO of the DON also looked at the draft and enhanced the map, action steps, and early warnings.

Below is an example of their work:

It is very efficient. This is especially true if you contrast this process with not seeing this tension as a polarity and getting into a chronic power struggle between those wanting Information Sharing as a “solution” and those wanting Information Security as a “solution.” It does not matter who “wins” in an either/or power struggle, our country loses. Information Sharing without Information Security makes our country vulnerable because of access to information by those who would harm us. Information Security without Information Sharing makes our country vulnerable because of lack of needed and coordinated information throughout the DOD.

All polarities work in very predictable ways allowing us to be both strategic and tactical in leveraging them within the Identity Ecosystem.

Real Time Strategic Change

There are six polarities, the Real Time Strategic Change Principles that support system identity and improvement.  These principles have been tested and proven effective in field settings around the world.  Pay attention to them in systems work and your desired future is more attainable, faster and more sustainably.  Each is defined as a key polarity – a tension between two elements that need each other over time to ensure greater system health.

Making Reality A Key Driver

Know the inside of your system and also know the outside too. Put together what you learn and you’ll make informed decisions and take strategic actions.

Engaging and Including

Provide clear direction and invite participation. Lead in both ways and you’ll make smarter choices and create the commitment needed for useful continuity fast and lasting change.

Preferred Futuring

Combine the best of your past and present and compelling visions for your future. Build this picture and you’ll create your best future.

Creating Community

Ensure you focus on both the system as a whole achieving its full potential while at the same time finding ways for each part of the system and people in it to achieve their full potential.  Do this and people achieve peak performance by becoming part of something larger than themselves that they have created and believe in.

Thinking and Acting in Real Time

Be in your future and plan for it at the same time. Learn to do them equally well and your desired future will happen faster.

Building Understanding

Stand up for what you believe in and be curious about what others think.  Support both interests and you will continue to learn and develop – individually, in your teams and as an entire system.

We have repeatedly witnessed the magic of what happens when you bring disparate ideas, intentions and hopes together. People yearn to be heard. They want to be part of solutions to problems that affect them. Skilled design and facilitation make it possible to tap into this common human desire.  Shared trust between consultants, clients, and participants is the second ingredient that helps make this happen. It is through the ideals and values of Real Time Strategic Change that we continue to hold hope for the world and for our chances of having a positive impact on it.

Benefits of Systems Mapping Processes

Section by Kaliya Hamlin

Value Network Mapping and Polarity Mapping and Management are system level sense making and future insight.  These processes give vastly different stakeholder groups the opportunity to come to broad agreement, consensus if you will, about the nature and shape of the ecosystem. What organisms are in the ecosystem? How do they interact? What are the inherent tensions that need to be managed for the ecosystem to thrive?

They are complementary because early warning signs for the down side of polarities could be identified for particular roles in the ecosystem defined in the value network mapping process. action steps for particular roles could be anticipated and put into action when particular warning signs emerged in other roles.

Stakeholders with seemingly opposing points of view or with very different emphasis of what is important can see how their perspectives fits with others in a holistic way. They can also come a shared understanding of overall ecosystem health and work together to proactively maintain it. These maps should be updated regularly and remapped every 3 years.

Having shared maps of the roles and polarities will go a long way to having productive dialogue between all the ecosystem stakeholders.  The next section goes on to cover options for having effective systems level dialogue among self identified stake holders and perhaps most importantly regular people who are doing transactions in the ecosystem.

Value Network Maps and Polarity Maps are not the only to process tools that could be used to help bring shared language and understanding to the NSTIC stakeholder community.

This post is from pages 25-29 and 35 of Kaliya's NSTIC Governance NOI Response - please see this page for the overview and links to the rest of the posts. Here is a link to the PDF.

This is the section before: The Trouble with Trust & the case for Accountability Networks

This is the section after: Value Network Mapping and Analysis

Accurate Assumptions in the NOI

An assumption that the NSTIC governance NOI gets right is that all relevant and affected parties (see note) must be involved or at least represented in the emergence and ongoing governance of an Identity Ecosystem.

“Representation of all stakeholders is a difficult but essential task when stakeholders are as numerous and diverse as those in the Identity Ecosystem.”

It accurately names the challenge that comes with the number of parties involved. With this vastness, it can become overwhelming to think of systems and processes that will be effective and inclusive on this scale. I have articulated in Appendix 3 a list of many different types of stakeholder groups representing a diverse array of interests.

Limiting Assumptions in the NOI

Given the need to meet the broad and potentially conflicting criteria to be successful, there are two assumptions embedded within the governance NOI that could limit the ability to find solutions that meet these criteria.

Voting as a Way to Govern Decision Making

3.6 Should all members have the same voting rights on all issues, or should voting rights be adjusted to favor those most impacted by a decision?

Voting is not really the right process to get consensus. Instead we can ask: are there ways to understand and know system health that support self-regulating, distributed decision making by a range of stakeholders to achieve the goal of making an ecosystem with the qualities articulated in NSTIC real.

Can a “steering group” really govern an Identity Ecosystem with the scope articulated in NSTIC? The challenge with defaulting to conventional systems like selecting representative stakeholder groups (say 150 of them) and then having an election of a “group” (10 of them) to carry out the above, is whether this form can hold enough space to truly govern with consensus at least about its legitimacy.  Voting in modern elections is a 300 year old social technology; Roberts Rules of Order are over 100 years old; neither will successfully meet the challenge of creating an responsive Identity Ecosystem steering group. Neither was designed to foster consensus, but rather majority rule. The needs of the many groups who represent less then 1/2 of all stakeholders must be met in this system.

The Internet itself is governed by a multi-stakeholder approach, with different organizations having different authority, capacity and recognized field of governance.  Clearly greater information sharing and coherence across a diverse range of industry sectors is needed for an ecosystem of interoperable identities to emerge.

Natural systems do not govern themselves with steering committees and voting. The practice of looking at biological systems science for inspiration for technology and systems development is called Biomimicry (see Appendix 4). We can look to this body of work to consider how nature “governs” thriving ecosystems of diverse organisms. How are the services that we think of as “identity management” done in nature? How are networks facilitated so that information flows in trusted ways?  I think it would be valuable to convene a diverse ad hoc group of stakeholders in an exploration of these kinds of questions with a biomimicry expert.  The outputs and key highlights should be made public and might inform other big systemic cyber beyond NSTIC issues. It makes sense to look to nature for inspiration in solving the complexity of developing truly interoperable Identity Ecosystem.

Stakeholder Insight Combined with Ecosystem Maps

Because these processes are public and the outputs published on the web, they create a level of systems accountability and increase the likelihood of earning legitimacy in the eyes of a vast majority of United States citizens and residents along with international stakeholders.

The initial consensus can be developed amongst diverse stakeholders using the systems mapping tools in the previous section.  Consensus will not be on “the solution to the problems” but on the polarities inherent in the system and a shared map of the roles and value flows in the existing and proposed ecosystem.  These will support effective dialogues that don’t go in circles but actually get to real conversations about system needs from the perspectives of various stakeholders. Shared understanding with the maps as a common ground means that stakeholders with very different perspectives can agree on key pulse points to measure to see if the ecosystem is working in balance.

I believe the systems insight provided by the dialogue processes outlined in this section combined with a steering group whose mandate is to respond to the outputs of those regular stakeholder dialogues relative to the shared maps will be effective, within a few years, of a thriving Identity Ecosystem.

From the End Notes: 

Note: Dee Hock, the founder of VISA international, helped develop this method to create organizations that work on biological metaphors rather then mechanistic ones.  Having space for all relevant and affected parties is a term of art from the process of forming Chaordic Organizations - see the  Chaordic Design Process.

The chaordic design process has six dimensions, beginning with purpose and ending with practice. Each of the six dimensions can be thought of as a lens through which participants examine the circumstances giving rise to the need for a new organization or to reconceive an existing one.

Developing a self-organizing, self-governing organization worthy of the trust of all participants usually requires intensive effort. To maximize their chances of success, most groups have taken a year or more on the process. During that time, a representative group of individuals (sometimes called a drafting team) from all parts of the engaged organization or community meet regularly and work through the chaordic design process.

1. Develop a Statement of Purpose
2. Define a Set of Principles
3. Identify All Participants
4. Create a New Organizational Concept
5. Write a Constitution
6. Foster Innovative Practices
7. Drawing the Pieces into a Whole

This post is from pages 36-37 and 50 and Appendix 4 of Kaliya's NSTIC Governance NOI Response - please see this page for the overview and links to the rest of the posts. Here is a link to the PDF.

This is the section before: Value Network Mapping and Analysis

This is the section after: Who are the Stakeholders?

The Scope of People