[Openid-dcp] Joint ISO/DCP work - detail on FIDO WG proposal

[Frederik Krogsdal Jacobsen]

I agree with Brian. It is not clear to me why an NDA would be necessary or
what the scope of it is (the NDA is not linked anywhere from within the
document and an internet search for "FIDO alliance NDA" did not give any
useful results).
Since the intent is for the working drafts to be publicly available and for
anyone to be able to view and create issues, it is counterproductive to
keep the meetings and activities of the working group confidential.
I expect that this will discourage open discussion on issues, since working
group members would be unable to disclose any arguments beyond "We
discussed it in the working group."
This situation could potentially damage the trustworthiness of the
verifiable credentials standards ecosystem as a whole.

Is there an argument for why the working group activities would need to be
confidential except that it seems to be required by FIDO alliance
procedures?
And does anyone have a link to the content of the NDA?

Cheers,
Frederik

PS. I also did not receive the original email directly. Perhaps something
with the attachment.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 at 21:19, Brian Campbell via
Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols <
openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net> wrote:

> From my perspective, having spent much of my career working on the
> development and advancement of open standards, the presence of NDA and
> confidentiality requirements in this context is fairly problematic.
>
> Requirements of this sort can have a chilling effect — whether intentional
> or not — and can discourage, limit, or even effectively exclude
> participation, especially across a diverse set of participants with
> differing expectations, obligations, and norms around openness and
> transparency.
>
> In my opinion, restrictions of this nature are antithetical to the notion
> of a neutral venue and would not be something I could view as an acceptable
> outcome
>
> Note and apology: I didn't seem to get this message
> https://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols/Week-of-Mon-20260105/001098.html
> directly so am only able to reply with this awkward copy of the content.
> There might be better ways to do it but none that I am aware of, apologies
> for the messy message.
>
> Joseph Heenan joseph at authlete.com @ Thu Jan 8 17:40:20 UTC 2026
>> Hi all
>> Please see the attached from FIDO on how they could support the joint
>> working group. This will be discussed further at the 13th Jan joint meeting.
>> Thanks
>> Joseph
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: Framework to create a Harmonization Technical Working Group - Jan
>> 2026.pdf
>> Type: application/pdf
>> Size: 156062 bytes
>> Desc: FIDO ALLIANCE CONFIDENTIAL
>> URL:
>> http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols/attachments/20260108/604fc62e/attachment-0001.pdf
>
>
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
> your computer. Thank you.*--
> Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols mailing list
> Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net
>
> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols/attachments/20260126/e8e7192f/attachment.htm>