Dear all, As announced here are first document for a governance review. Note that the source (a draft iso standard) is not always easy to read... I copied the titles and guidance from there, extracted * "Description" (as I kind of high-level review criteria. * Checks (as a kid of check list of important items to be confirmed during a review" as we do not have the time to reinvent all. If the final standard is published, I can adapt the guidance, but I support that the structure will not change, and we can check now in our project whether a review based on such criteria and guidance makes sense. I like to add other norms/criteria, to extent this review for other aspects than governance. The methods come with 2 documents: 1. An Excel as a kind of knowledge base, where it is easier to copy new items. 2. A Word "template" whose content is generated (by a Word Marco) for the excel), which is easier to read than the Excel. Note that this is NOT the "solution" for a governance framework, which is what we also need for D6.3. A proposal for such a document will follow soon... Regards, Carlo See: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KaodZCRgS2ZoeuoNQOpaN6CWTK379twd/view?usp=sharing (I uploaded as zip so that the platform does not destroy the format needed for our macros. Please make changes remotely, and update the changed version again. ___________________________________________ Carlo Harpes Managing Director itrust consulting s.à r.l. Office building: 55, rue Gabriel Lippmann L-6947 Niederanven Phone: +352 2617 6212 (Reception) mobile: +352 621 45 19 45 Headquarter: 18, Steekaul; L-6831 Berbourg Web: www.itrust.lu<http://www.itrust.lu/> mailto: harpes at itrust.lu<mailto:harpes at itrust.lu> r.c. lux B123183 - VAT: LU 21534655 ___________________________________________ This message is restricted and may contain personal data; any unauthorized disclosure, use or dissemination, either whole or partial, is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of the message, please notify the sender immediately. itrust consulting s.à r.l. does not accept liability for any errors, omissions or even commitment in the contents of this message, except where supported by a written agreement with the receiver. From: Clifton, Judith Catherine <judith.clifton at unican.es> Sent: 14 August 2021 13:04 To: Carlo Harpes <harpes at itrust.lu> Cc: Diaz Fuentes, Daniel <daniel.diaz at unican.es>; Joris Finck (imec) <Joris.Finck at imec.be>; Clifton, Judith Catherine <judith.clifton at unican.es> Subject: Re: Token Evaluation Framework Hi Carlo I thought I should add some context to the table I sent you before you start to provide us with input on Monday. The logic of the evaluation framework is 1) first identify flaws in the public sector (what needs fixing) as seen in the scientific literature on the topic and captured in the original TOKEN project 2) identify the potential ways in which blockchain can improve (benefits) but also has risks/costs, based again on the theoretical/empirical literature on the topic, as well as analysis of the four PUCs, and 3) on that basis, ask the PUCs what their objectives are given this approach (KPIs). So the work flow is the following: 1. List "FLAWS" in the public sector - these are extracted from the TOKEN original proposal, refined based on the literature and interviews with the four PUCs (as seen in the ex-ante deliverable). As you know, the ex-ante deliverable included socio-economic, organizational-cultural and technological elements, but did not pay enough attention to the legal aspects. HENCE WE REQUEST YOUR EXPERTISE IN IDENTIFYING LEGAL FLAWS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR. 2. List the potential BENEFITS and COSTS/RISKs of blockchain in the public sector - these were extracted from the literature (systematic review) and refined with analysis of the four PUCs. WE ALSO REQUEST YOUR EXPERTISE IN IDENFITYING LEGAL BENEFITS AND COSTS/RISKS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR. 3. List the KPIs - however, we will NOT be writing the KPIs. Rather, once we circulate the table on 6 September, we expect the PUCs to write these, based on how and what criteria they want to be evaluated against (including socio-economic, organizational-cultural, technological, legal and political). I agree with you that the reviewers expect the PUCs to have objectives along the dimensions we include - ie quantitative and/or qualititative targets to reach by a time line. At this stage, the main way you can help us is to examine the flaws, benefits and costs from the LEGAL perspective which we extracted from the literature/TOKEN project and analysis of teh PUCs and add / edit anything you find missing. >From 6 September we present this to the PUCs - and they must establish their KPIs. If it is helpful, we could have a phone call about this. Let me know Judith. ________________________________ From: Carlo Harpes <harpes at itrust.lu<mailto:harpes at itrust.lu>> Sent: 13 August 2021 18:37 To: Clifton, Judith Catherine Cc: Diaz Fuentes, Daniel; Joris Finck (imec) Subject: RE: Token Evaluation Framework Dear Judith, Evaluation is in general a quite formal process that considered formalized inputs: · evaluation criteria · evaluation evident (what is generally collected by independent persons, or in a self-assessment, · this then generated evaluation findings/Results, which hare generally recommendation for achieving compliance or making improvements. There is a considerable difference whether you want to evaluate 1. OUR project (token): this is the ask of our reviewers. 2. Our objectives: Then you should o start from the promise we made (in the proposal, which is the strategic level) o generate (for each promise) a "Tactic", i.e. measure on which we work during the project to reach the objective. o For each measure: a KPI; what do what measure and what value do we expect to consider the measure completed (it might be: D1.1 accepted by the Commission, up to have made 5 conference; having gained 1000 participants to token conference.... o At some milestone, e.g. now, in year, at the end of the project, you measure i.e. self-assessment), and produce a table saying, concluding, e.g.: We now reached 35% of the objectives... o This is what the reviewed expect us to do (to my understanding). 2. An organisation/Project willing to use token technology (this may be more interesting to creating in our project). If your table intended to address item 2, I would revise it and start from "the objective of our project". If you want to address item 3, I can show you our approach and 1. Once we agreed on the format, 2. you may add your content (from this Excel) in such a form, 3. I may add evaluation item (e.g. related to governance (during our work on the governance framework) 4. We may add further evaluation criteria when reading and understanding standards such as DTR 23245 on Blockchain and DTL Risks, vulnerabilities... (cf WP1) 5. Any partner can add further technical/social evaluation criteria. 6. But then, we have to make a self-assessment or a kind or cross-assessment (a partner assesses the innovation tool/use cases of some other partner. 7. This is only useful a. if we do it during the project so that the tool owner can benefit from the results. b. If we prepare this to be used by the future users of our tool (ie. project manager of blockchain-based project). In this case, we may add to the evaluation framework our recommendation, i.e. "Use Canis major to do this of that". I suggest going the path 7b, I can give you a governance review proposal as input, but we need other partners to lead and contribute. I am block on a Word issues, and I think I can send you the input on Monday. Have a nice weekend Carlo ___________________________________________ Carlo Harpes Managing Director itrust consulting s.à r.l. Office building: 55, rue Gabriel Lippmann L-6947 Niederanven Phone: +352 2617 6212 (Reception) mobile: +352 621 45 19 45 Headquarter: 18, Steekaul; L-6831 Berbourg Web: www.itrust.lu<http://www.itrust.lu/> mailto: harpes at itrust.lu<mailto:harpes at itrust.lu> itrust consulting - Information security in Luxembourg<http://www.itrust.lu/> www.itrust.lu<http://www.itrust.lu> itrust consulting "Move securely within the cyberworld" , a security, Ethical Hacking and consulting society based in Luxembourg. r.c. lux B123183 - VAT: LU 21534655 ___________________________________________ This message is restricted and may contain personal data; any unauthorized disclosure, use or dissemination, either whole or partial, is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of the message, please notify the sender immediately. itrust consulting s.à r.l. does not accept liability for any errors, omissions or even commitment in the contents of this message, except where supported by a written agreement with the receiver. From: Clifton, Judith Catherine <judith.clifton at unican.es<mailto:judith.clifton at unican.es>> Sent: 12 August 2021 15:42 To: Carlo Harpes <harpes at itrust.lu<mailto:harpes at itrust.lu>> Cc: Diaz Fuentes, Daniel <daniel.diaz at unican.es<mailto:daniel.diaz at unican.es>>; Clifton, Judith Catherine <judith.clifton at unican.es<mailto:judith.clifton at unican.es>>; Joris Finck (imec) <Joris.Finck at imec.be<mailto:Joris.Finck at imec.be>> Subject: Token Evaluation Framework Dear Carlo As agreed, I attach the draft for the TOKEN EVALUATION FRAMEWORK. We have sent this to Jesus Ruiz, Alastria, for his opinion on the legal dimension and are waiting for his feedback. We would be happy to have your feedback too especially on the LEGAL dimension. Please let me know if you prefer to talk after you have had a look - or feel free to edit the document directly. Judith. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/token-all/attachments/20210816/3f51a170/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: STA_R637_token-GovernanceReviewTempl_v0.2.2-cha.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 532372 bytes Desc: STA_R637_token-GovernanceReviewTempl_v0.2.2-cha.docx URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/token-all/attachments/20210816/3f51a170/attachment-0001.docx> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PMD_R631_token-DLT-evaluation-framework_v0.2.2-cha.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 143902 bytes Desc: PMD_R631_token-DLT-evaluation-framework_v0.2.2-cha.xlsx URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/token-all/attachments/20210816/3f51a170/attachment-0001.xlsx>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy