...

Estimated - 16:00 to 17:00 CET

Performed -

AGENDA

1. Support activities

2. From eID task force meeting on 24/5 20160524 - Meeting minutes, Tuesday 24th May 2016 - OpenNCP Task Force - eID. :

   • eSENS handover sustainability?
     • End eSENS in March 2017, developments may end this summer, no support anymore... the only entity to ensure continuity activity is OpenNCP.
     • Need to empower OpenNCP to develop further level 4 and 5
   • Should we (OpenNCP Community) reinforce eSENSE request for the eID eHealth specific attributes?
3. Update CDA?

1. Steering Committee

...

Governance Model 

MEETING NOTES

1. OpenNCP Community
   1. Way of working:
      
      1. bi-weekly, technical committees, task force meeting...
      2. Dev/support Jira, migration of continuous integration tools to CEF digital platform...
   2. Improvement ideas, other feedback:
      
      1. The Community is working the way it should, but practical problems lot of coordination but very little activity that has to be coordinated 
      2. Lot of topics ongoing, but not yet measurable value contribution...we're missing the technical coordination to push it in the development back-log. Processes etc. are in place, but maybe we're missing some speed, guidance...
      3. In the past leveraged on Licinio who had one foot on technical aspects, and one foot on political aspects, bringing all the pieces together...
         
         1. 2 approaches at the moment (e.g. eID and EIDAS adapter, Netherlands and Austrian pilot...). In the past it was possible to mediate, at the moment concurrent activities from eHealth sector and the development team on the project.
         2. Many of the components developed now are infrastructure, mandated by the outside
            1. We need a lot of interactions with the different stakeholders to understand how it works, which is challenging.
      4. Purpose of OpenNCP?
         
         1. To provide countries the best reference implementations for the eHealth cross border specifications. MS look for:
            1. for working tested and mature solution
            2. for support to deploy the reference implementation
         2. How wide do we want to be?
            
            1. We have to ensure that for decision made, we commit to implement.
            2. With regards to influencing building blocks etc. we might not be entitled to do that and need to narrow our scope... but need to ensure that BB do not overrun eHealthDSI sector specific needs?
            3. The most activities should be inside eHealth DSI, what about the other topics (which are not the core components of OpenNCP) we have to discuss in the eHDSI?
               
               1. Should we somehow include these topics in OpenNCP community => eHDSI COmmunity? Or separate?
               2. Today the scope and limitation are essentially within the OpenNCP, but are we equipped to deal with all those transversal activities? Can we cope with them? Exercising control on those external activities? (to make our life easier, voicing our thoughts)
               3. Via the EC we have the channel of communication inside the EC. It exists, but maybe we did not use it in a proper way so far...
                  1. we can use this strength to influence our stakeholders but
                  2. eHDSI governance model: OpenNCP is a box inside other boxes (eHOMB, eHMSEG...). We are focussed to deliver something very specific, we have to be specialized...we're limited in term of resources...
            4. We should narrow down the number of task to concentrate on offering the best implementation possible.
            5. Beside the OpenNCP implementation, we will also need to provide support to MS (EC has been mandated for that)
               1. We need to decide/shaping our role in term of support
                  
                  1. For support we need specific resources, to be sized for it... to be able to reply on time (e.g. eP audit log not working and not corrected since April)
                  2. If related to OpenNCP usage, needs to be reported to the OpenNCP Community
               2. What kind of support:
                  
                  1. Need a centralized support system for eHDSI (e.g JIRA receiving all the requests) as first line if organisational, semantic...issues
                  2. If specific, a second line
                     1. If central services => separate instance
                     2. If OpenNCP => OpenNCP Community
                  3.  we need to have SLAs
               3. Migration CEF Digital? Need a eHDSI wiki page and a eHDSI single entry point for the support
            6. First proposal, we need to propose a consolidated proposal to eHOMB in term of support, to see if eHOMB endorses this role. (consequence in term of resources)
2. Renaming of the Community?
   1. Proposition to keep the focus on developing OpenNCP supporting. Depending on the scope decision, it might influence the name as well...
   2. eHDSI Community page + other bi-weekly meeting for the MS? Especially if we want to narrow the scope of the OpenNCP. (different mandates)
3. Replacement of Licinio?
   
   1. Steering Committee:
   2. eHDSI
   3. JASeHN task 5.6 CEF operational support leader
      •  markus.kalliola will ask Henrique to see if there will be a replacement for Licinio
   4. eSENS
4. ESENS piloting EID and non-repudiation on 28 Jun 2016 and  - we should support and learn from this initiative
5. Meeting 25 May 2016 3pm CET to prepare/mature topics for the next eHOMB after eHOMB 24/5.
Licinio Kustra Mano proposes to prepare a proposal scope OpenNCP + framework to discussSteering Committee
1. Last meeting we discussed the role of OpenNCP and to narrow its scope
2. We're migrating the community site to CEF where we can describe the different topics
   1. Front page need to be prepared, clarify the OpenNCP role to the other parts
3. We need to align amongst ourselves the following with regards to the OpenNCP Community
   1. Vision
   2. Mission - Open question to be addressed
      1. Provide up to date technical specifications/implementation? for eHealth: architecture, role of each component...
         
         1. AS IS we have technical implementation not in line with technical specifications
         2. markus.kalliola: We cannot go further than the role given to us by eHN - cf CEF work programme and governance model
         3. CP process: Change proposal process (work in progress)
      2. Develop and provide the best reference implementation possible of the epSOS specifications
      3. Support the ones that are using the OpenNCP reference implementation
   3. Strategy
   4. Milestones
   5. Tasks
   6. Resources
4. Separation of OpenNCP activity compared to the other activities (eHN, JASeHN...)?
   
   1. Dependant of other projects, engagements...how could we influence when we do not have room to influence. Challenge on how OpenNCP need to develop, go forward
   2. The OpenNCP should focus on technical implementation
   3. SupportSpecification's maintenance for design cross border services eP, PS specs?
   4. 1. 1. Example: Non-repudiation specifications
         2. Update of Gazelle, the testing tool having official specifications (pointing to epSOS specs)
5. Problematic: not enough ressources to implement
6. In 2012 Carecom provider made updates on the datamodel - we cannot change the service provider without significant developments on LTR and transformation manager. Then if we update, specifications won't been up to date anymore
   1. Soeren has raised change proposals to EXPAND, not implemented in technical specifications
      1. Question? How will we achieve that?
   2. We need to have specs updated, who is responsible to update specifications?
      => Discussion ongoing.
   • •  michele.foucart to look at ONC with markus.kalliola