Assumptions
- Applicant and mediator arrange the meeting (vetting session) independently from the app, as they either know each other or have already established an official communication → arranging of the vetting meeting is out of scope.
- Self-registration by the applicant is omitted, as it does not significantly speed up the process for most projects which typically have a limited number of participants or where mediators deal with a limited number of applicants → self-registration may be needed for massive and remote vetting scenarios.
- The mediator must be enrolled upfront in the same manner as the applicant. This enrolment is conducted by a higher-level mediator or top-level Project Credentials Manager.
- The credentials and authentication of the mediator should be established with at least the same level of assurance as for the applicants.
- The system could support the management of tokens that are distributed through the project and to the applicants - this is a potentially useful, but not essential feature.
2 Comments
Alan Lewis
Id document scanning with ReadID can check the validity of the evidence, but verification is still reliant on the mediator to verify the identity evidenced belongs to the owner. In the event that the mediator does not know the applicant do we need a further step to introduce additional verification steps (with other applicants who know this applicant (say). Also should we introduce a 'confidence score' step that would for example gate whether an applicant could also be a mediator for other applicants?
Jule Ziegler
Id document scanning with ReadID can check the validity of the evidence, but verification is still reliant on the mediator to verify the identity evidenced belongs to the owner. In the event that the mediator does not know the applicant do we need a further step to introduce additional verification steps (with other applicants who know this applicant (say).
→ Verification between the ID document and applicant is performed by the mediator by comparing the ID doc photo with the real person.
→ I think it's no problem if the mediator does not know the applicant in person as the mediator has performed the previously described check (ID doc vs. real person) but also has to check (see step 5 in the BPMN model) if the applicant belongs to the community (compare ID doc name with some kind of memberlist). (As part of project management/budgeting/accounting I would assume that such member lists are available. Assumption: mediator need to have access to such a list or at least know who is part of his/her team)
Also should we introduce a 'confidence score' step that would for example gate whether an applicant could also be a mediator for other applicants?
→ let's discuss this in one of our next VCs. Not sure if this is our scope or needs to be decided by the respective community