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

[Brian Campbell]

Thanks Nishant,

That is understandable and the feverish work is appreciated. I do hope,
however, that open and equitable participation isn't sacrificed in the name
of avoiding additional complexity.

On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 10:09 AM Nishant Kaushik <nishant at fidoalliance.org>
wrote:

> Brian,
>
> Thanks for creating the thread and sharing your concerns. From the
> beginning, we've been taking in all the feedback coming from the group, and
> have been working feverishly to work out how we can meet those needs while
> not creating a whole lot of additional complexity (in our governance, in
> our systems, etc), since that complexity could introduce delays that no one
> wants. I will provide more details on the call later today.
>
> Thanks,
> Nishant
>
> On Jan 27, 2026, at 11:14 AM, Brian Campbell <bcampbell at pingidentity.com>
> wrote:
>
> 
> Thanks Frederik, you articulate some of the concerns better than I did.
> And thank you Lukasz, in my reading I didn't get past the confidentiality
> restrictions to notice those kinds of things.
>
> I'm not sure how best to voice these concerns but in the spirit of open
> discussions and anticipation of the "Joint ISO/DCP call (9PM UTC slot)"
> later today, I've added a few recipients to the cc list here to expand
> awareness.
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 3:56 AM Lukasz Jaromin via
> Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols <
> openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>
>> Apart from the NDA, I also wanted to draw your attention to formulations
>> such as "*Rationale for extending the invitation" *and "*annual
>> reviews" *that sound fairly subjective and doesn’t help making this
>> relationship stable*. *Given that this group is a purpose group with a
>> well-defined objective to build the specification of a protocol, why the
>> Invited Parties (at least those at start) shall not be welcome and have
>> the right to contribute till the spec is created and published?
>>
>> Best
>> LJ
>>
>> On 26 Jan 2026, at 08:57, Frederik Krogsdal Jacobsen via
>> Openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols <
>> openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>> ------
>>>>
>>>> Lukasz Jaromin
>>>>
>>>> Head of Standards and Product Strategy
>>>>
>>>> T.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +44 20 4583 6770
>>>>
>>>> lukasz.jaromin at raidiam.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- 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
>>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
> *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.*
>
>

-- 
_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._
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-digital-credentials-protocols/attachments/20260127/2bb02d34/attachment-0001.htm>