eduKEEP (GN4-2 JRA3 T3-1B) 2017-09-07 Meeting notes

"While a significant number of respondents (60%) said user centric ID is interesting, on the detailed questions, typically only 5-6 responded and when they did, those were contradictory. I have not yet plotted who answered what e.g. if there’s an overlap of ‘not interested’ with the 5 who answered detailed questions ‘not relevant’ (this is the ideal case).If this is the case, then a significant subset of people who are interested in the concept have done no real thinking or engagement on it. Their interest can therefore only have a low confidence factor IMO."

This is true, but at least all the big federations (accept for Jisc) are interested in the usercentric approach, which is the most important thing.

Her other concern was this:

"I have a separate concern about federations who indicate directly or indirectly that life long ID or account linking is not of concern to them. If they are not concerned, this means they abdicate this space increasingly to other initatives like eIDAS for life long ID which is fine to do deliberately, knowing how to interoperate but not good as a thing to just let happen through inaction. Rather than being positioned to be aggregators for the sector towards eID, they could be replaced."

After some discussion we concluded that we should communicate in our BCP that we cannot get rid of the ubiquity of social logins or effectiveness of egov ID, and we should not try to get rid of them. We should work hard to provide viable alternatives. The risk is we can be replaced if we don’t do anything.