Listen to this Episode about the next Internet Identity Workshop on Spotify
Mathieu: Welcome to the SSI Orbit Podcast: a forum where we explore the ever-growing ecosystems of Self-sovereign Identity. I’m your host Mathieu Glaude.
In today’s conversation, I welcome Kaliya Young (often referred to as IdentityWoman) for a sneak peek at what to expect from IIW32: the 32nd iteration of the Internet Identity Workshop, which will be hosted virtually. For over 15 years, IIW has been the premier place to bring together the largest concentration of talents dedicated to designing and building identity systems that empower individuals. This episode is meant to give a high-level overview of the topics that are being discussed in the digital and decentralized identity communities in preparation for this event. Listeners of this podcast who haven’t registered yet for IIW or who are maybe on the fence about registering can get a 20% discount by applying this discount code → ‘SSIOrbit_XXXII_20’ to your purchase here. We look forward to seeing you all there.
Without further ado, here’s my conversation with Kaliya Young.
Kaliya, how is it going, and what’s keeping you busy these days?
Kaliya: Thanks Mathieu. I am the Ecosystems Director at the COVID-19 Credentials Initiative, so that’s my current main focus of work. In that role, I’ve been tapped to co-chair the interoperability working group for Good Health Pass, which is happening in the Trust over IP Foundation.
Pseudonymity and Naming on the Internet
Mathieu: Awesome, I’ve been following both of those projects; the CCI for — wow, over a year now already, and then the Good Health Pass. I definitely see a lot of momentum and excitement behind that project. I would like to go a little deeper into both of those as we go through the conversation here today. This is a quote I pulled from online: you go by the handle of ‘IdentityWoman,’ and IdentityWoman is a ‘nymwarrior’. What is a nymwarrior?
Kaliya: This term emerged around the time when Google created Google Plus, building on top of its email system. Google created profiles for people who had email addresses, and then early on, you could get invited into the Google Plus social network. Those early invitations went out, and they spread around. At some point, they were going to flip over to be totally public, so anybody could join once they had a critical mass. It was at that point that Google effectively decided to implement a ‘real names’ policy, and began cancelling or suspending people’s accounts, who didn’t have what we started to term WASPO-nyms: that is, a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant name. If you were ‘John Smith,’ you were fine, even if that wasn’t your real name because it looks like a real name to the algorithms. But for me, you know, ‘Kaliya IdentityWoman’ (which is my first name in real life plus my online handle) was suspended because it didn’t look like a real name. They were building a social network of people who are online, many of whom have used handles in the online space for a decade or more. The position was, “Well, that’s not real.” Except, it is real because they use it online and have done so for ten years, so stop cancelling people because they don’t match your naming algorithm, which only lets certain types of names through. It became lit; I’m sure that if you search on it today, you’ll find the ‘nym-wars.’ So, people started finding each other on Twitter and being, “what’s going on?” There was a really big fight at the time with Google around this. Folks like Tim O’Reilly got into the fray, and started saying there’s a lynch mob against Google. I was, “Timeout Tim, that’s not an appropriate term for people who are marginalized, who have different identities.” Telling a big corporation that they’re wrong, when lynching was what happened to black people in the South by white mobs; these are not equivalent, and you can’t make this. In fact, I even pointed at the example from Roots, where Kunta Kinte said, “My name is Kunta Kinte,” and the slave owner was, “No, your name’s Toby.” You know it’s not the same at all; slavery and that impact is much greater than these smaller fights we’re having about naming. But still, it’s the entity with more power saying to the other people, “No, your name can’t be Identity Woman, or Rainbow Star Flower or whatever that ‘funny’ internet handle was that you had —that’s not real.” We were talking more about this power imbalance, around who has the right to name themselves, and who gets to say what a legitimate name is.
Mathieu: Yes. There’s something extremely powerful about pseudonymity. That’s one of the things I love on Twitter today, too. You have these people with such powerful voices; I don’t know what their legal name is, and I actually don’t care, either. Your legal name: I don’t know if it’s an antiquated attribute for identifying you, but on certain things, and Google Plus is probably one of them; why can’t you be called whatever you want to be called? What’s the difference?
Kaliya: They came back and said,” Well, behavioural reasons.” All the community managers took the position of, “Behavior in communities isn’t managed by what you choose to call yourself.” Really, names are tools that people use to communicate about each other. What happens to be on our administrative paperwork, and where it’s appropriate to force people to share the name that’s on their administrative paperwork, is something we need to be talking about. It’s not always relevant, and in fact, can be harmful and make vulnerable people even more vulnerable, if they are required to share that.
Mathieu: I think that from the other perspective, you’re talking about being cancelled because you’re not providing a name. But people get cancelled, because they provide their names, from the other side around. So, it’s an interesting social landscape that’s been developing on the internet. You’ve been in the Digital ID space — I know you started IIW in 2005. This is a broad question, but from when you got into the space, to where we are now, how have you seen the different trends move, or what’s really changed?
Kaliya: My core inspiration, and the place I got started on the path of looking at digital identity, was a community called PlanetWork, which is ‘Planet’ and ‘Network’ mushed together. As a community, they did some discernment after their year 2000 conference that they hosted. They asked what was a missing piece of infrastructure needed to make the internet better for people, and for people to self-organize, to connect to each other, to make the planet, and the ecosystem and the earth that we live on better. It was a very interesting answer that they came up with: they identified a gap, and said there are no open standards for digital identity, for the representation of people in the digital realm, and that we needed open standards for this. And, if we didn’t take the time to invest in creating those open standards, if you took the current trajectory forward without those open standards, then you would end up with governments and large corporations owning everybody’s identity. They were right, right.
They took the paper that was written, the Augmented Social Network Whitepaper: Building Identity and Trust into the Next Generation; they shopped it around to a bunch of foundations, who didn’t understand what they were talking about. They didn’t understand the missing infrastructure piece they were naming, and didn’t understand the implications of not funding its development at the time. And here we are: Facebook kind of owns everybody’s digital representation of themselves, with bonus — Google owns a bunch of them too. Now we have OpenID Connect, and it’s like Nascar with logins, with these different options, but none of them are you.
To be fair, OpenID and OAuth all came out of, and were developed within, the context of IIW, and they were better than everybody going to a new website and getting an entirely different identity every time. I think that there was corporate capture that happened with those standards, and I think people are very concerned about this with the next generation of open standards, so they are pushing even harder for them to be open and person-driven. Hopefully, we can have truly open standards that have less corporate capture than the first generations, but I’m really optimistic about getting usable PKI (Public Key Infrastructure) into the hands of normal people, on apps they control on their devices. That’s super exciting, and has the potential to fulfill those original visions that I was inspired by in the first place. So this keeps me motivated to help these new technologies to succeed, because I think they help to realize key aspects of that original vision, that have yet to be realized.
Mathieu: I definitely think the rise of mobile and other similar developments have put tools in people’s pockets to be able to manage their own identity attributes or all sorts of credentials. I do find it interesting; I think you had founded IIW in 2005; I’m trying to think back to when I opened my Facebook account. It was around that time too, or a bit earlier.
Kaliya: Facebook wasn’t founded until 2004. Sometimes I describe myself as being against Facebook before it ever existed, in the sense that we were naming this issue.
Mathieu: It is funny today, a lot of people have been talking about the security breach that they had — who knows when it happened — but they talked about it a week ago or so; all these accounts that have been breached. Out of 196 million users, they dropped down to 194 million users with an increase in traffic in the time, as well. It’s crazy to see the risks that go with the models that they have in place today. I think we see some really good movements in the communities we’re in, but the people that are using these weak Web 2 systems (however we want to call it) don’t seem to be impacted by this stuff.
Kaliya: Sure. Until we have better tools, they won’t be, because they’re pragmatic. I think we need to take this seedling infrastructure we have and grow it up, so it provides better value to a whole range of actors who today find value in a Facebook ecosystem. Part of that is around entrepreneurs building alternative social networks, who are committed to interoperability and to putting users in control in a way that Facebook has not. A great example is the work that Jim Fournier is doing with a network called Tru.net, which uses both a decentralized identifier in the infrastructure, and also a standard that they’re putting forward for adoption by others, called JLINC. JLINC allows you to see the provenance of information that you’re viewing in your social network, and they’re committed to working with other emerging alternative social network operators, to have interoperability between their platform and other people’s platforms.
Solving business issues with Open Standards
Mathieu: That’s awesome. It looks like there are two different types of ways to approach decentralized identity: you could build new platforms and compete with the existing platforms that are out there, but there’s also the existing platforms out there, who could start re-architecting themselves to be able to meet the privacy and consent-driven properties that people are looking for, and should have access to. The Digital ID space is absolutely booming, if you talk about these ID-proofing companies. On one side, there are all these verticals; I got my ID-proofing companies, I got my signature companies, I could even get into the cyberspace; I’ve been talking a lot about identity and access management companies that have been involved in IIW for all these years.
How do you see them going towards that space? It’s one thing to build a new platform from scratch, but what’s your view on how these existing centralized providers are approaching this?
Kaliya: Yes. Those entities are solving business problems that businesses have. The question is, can we solve those business problems with open standards, that make it easier for someone to take a verifiable credential from one party and share it with another, and have them believe it?
I think in the end, if we’re successful with a bunch of these new emerging open standards, they’re very disruptive to the existing business models of identity proofers, etc. They’re making money over the fact that the current paper-based model of document provision means that the only way to figure out whether something is true, is to go and ping large data sets that they have access to and are corralling. And then, making assertions based on those data sets, that other businesses are relying on. I believe that this is another under-reported property of the verifiable credentials technology that is being developed at IIW. If we are successful, we end the problem of: “if I know information about you, I can be you.” The only way that you can be you, is if you actually have the verifiable credential from an authoritative source. I’m sure we will have attacks that try and get those, but that’s different than the current attack model, which is: “I’m going to find information about you, and because I know that information, I’m going to commit fraud or try and steal things from you, because I’m convincing someone that I am you, because I know information about you. That whole set of attack surfaces goes away when you have a verifiable credentials type of infrastructure, where only the person who was issued a credential can assert those things about themselves. They can know information about you, but they can’t replay you presenting the credential, because only you have it.
Mathieu: I was on the phone with someone earlier today, who was calling me to ask about his email account. It was taken over, and his email is connected to a whole lot of his different accounts: his banking account, his crypto account, all sorts of things. The person was able to get in and change his recovery email, and he’s been stuck in this whole situation. There are all of these types of issues, such as you just described, that are able to happen.
Kaliya: To be fair, you know that people should be using two-factor authentication, or FIDO (Fast Identity Online) tokens etc. I do think, though, if we move towards verifiable credentials and that tooling for authentication, it’s also way more secure. That’s why I knew we were onto something, once the banks started showing up. They said, “That’s really cool; that usable PKI you’re embedding in the app is way better than little owls looking back at you and SMTP messages; let’s do that!” My response was, “Yay, the banks are into this because of security properties, not because it’s good for people, and maybe we’ll get both. We’ll get ‘good for people’ and ‘more secure for the banks’, which is the win/win we want, in order to get broad market adoption.
Mathieu: Yes. These processes of authentication like 2FA or this type of thing are still very good processes. You could enable them through using verifiable credentials, rather than using a one-time PIN or other methods that have worked for a bank before, such as getting an email with a code or a text message with a code. I probably get these every day now for different services I use, so something like verifiable credentials for a two-factor authentication could be something interesting. I’m not sure if that’s what Microsoft is going to do with an authenticator app, but it is interesting to see companies like Microsoft, who are obviously not new to the space but they’re making significant headway with verifiable credentials.
Upcoming IIW conference
So, IIW is coming up next week; it starts on Tuesday, so you must be excited about it. You must be overwhelmed with work right now; what is it looking like this year?
I’m much newer to the space than someone like yourself or a lot of other people that are in there. I think I attended the past two IIWs, so it’s quite new to me still. The first time I attended IIW, I just couldn’t believe the brilliance that’s in there. I absolutely loved the format; you’re not stuck to only listening to people, or to a certain agenda; you could move around and try to progress as you want. I think this ‘unconference,’ or however you label it, as a format for IIW is phenomenal, but what are you most looking forward to for this year’s IIW?
Kaliya: I think we were really fortunate with the pandemic kicking in last year, that we had a pathway to go virtual. My friend Lucas Chaffee had a platform he built specifically to do several different formats, but one of the formats he had in mind when he designed Kiko Chat was Open Space technology. That is what we used to co-create the agenda live on the morning of the event, so that you know where to go. We had six weeks from when we officially decided to go virtual, to be virtual. We were able to use Lucas’s platform to recreate what happens live and in person. If you haven’t been to IIW in person, we sit 250 people in a circle together, and we articulate the principles of Open Space and the ‘Law of Motion and Responsibility.’ That says that if you aren’t learning or contributing in your session, it’s your responsibility to respectfully get up and go somewhere that you are. That works in person, and we took that same format that we use in person and translated it online pretty seamlessly. The great thing about after that first virtual version, is people came to us and said, “Everything is so crazy with the pandemic, but IIW was exactly the same, and I needed that.” So, we’re very lucky that we got to translate it into the digital version and continue the vibrancy and dynamics. We even expanded it, because there were people able to come to ‘Virtual IIW’ who were unable to make it to our physical version in Mountain View. We’re planning to go back to the physical version in the fall, hopefully. We’d like to alternate between digital and in-person to capture some of the good things about being virtual that we’ve liked, but also to reconnect our community with the affordances that an in-person meeting provides that you just can’t recreate digitally.
Mathieu: In the spirit of inclusivity, it was great to see just how people from all over are able to actually participate and see that. I think you and the other organizers do a really good job of making it inclusive, so people have different statures could join.
Now that we’re a week out from IIW32, what are the biggest industry trends that you’re seeing that people are excited to discuss?
Kaliya: I think we’re going to have a big discussion about COVID-19 credentials. They’ve only grown in importance since they were a seedling of conversation at the beginning of the pandemic. A year ago, BBS+ was put forward as a new credential signing format, specifically JSON-LD ZKP (Linked Data Zero Knowledge Proof) with BBS+. That has grown, in terms of people’s understanding of how good it could be, and there’s significant alignment in the industry happening around it. I published a paper in January (which we can put in the show notes), articulating the choice landscape, and the different flavours of verifiable credentials, and why this new format helped to meet many different criteria that different subgroups in the community had. We want to encourage more alignment with it, so we can get real interoperability. Writing a standard isn’t enough to build an ecosystem of interoperability; there’s this critical step of implementing the standard, and seeing if your version of what you implemented works in software created by other people who are also conforming with the standard. I believe that’s also going to be a big topic this year, in terms of what’s next, in terms of testing and growing the pie of the systems that work well with each other. In the process, we’re building the market for all the entrepreneurs who are building on the standard. To me, every new client of every company in the ecosystem is a good thing for everyone else.
Mathieu: These BBS+ methods must be exciting to the COVID-19 types of projects; it seems as though they’re the ones spearheading a lot of the interoperability conversations?
Kaliya: Well, we’ll see; I don’t want to get into all the politics that are trying to sort themselves out behind the scenes. I think we’re all doing our best, and I think there is a goodwill effort by everybody, trying to solve for COVID use cases to get to interoperability. There are still distinct differences out there, and we’re continuing to dialogue.
Developments in Governance
Mathieu: Have you seen many discussions happening, or looking like they’re going to happen, around governance? I know that’s a very broad topic. I come from the perspective of an ecosystem solutions implementation across the stack; being able to have a registry of bids, and credential schemas, and other similar topics: peer-to-peer communications, the credentialing exchange, the ecosystem rules, and governance. Have you seen a lot of advancement in that over the past years? Or, is this something that you hear conversations around, or are hoping to see at the next IIW?
Kaliya: I would hope that the people who are so gung-ho at Trust over IP make space to listen to people who have chosen to opt-out and not participate in that ecosystem, because there are reasons why people are doing that. I’m very hopeful that the momentum around the JSON-LD ZKP with BBS+ can grow to the extent where we aren’t having a conversation about my flavour of credentials versus your flavour versus another. It’s exhausting, and it has hurt market adoption.
One of the things I’ve come to understand also, is that there’s a natural split within the community. One split that continues and won’t ever go away, is the difference between permission ledgers and public ledgers, in terms of where to anchor decentralized identifiers. People simply have different philosophical anchors of which one to choose. I think they both have valid points, so we’re never not going to see people anchor DIDs on public chains, and we’re never not going to see another set of people choose to anchor on permission ledgers for their own business process reasons. One of those reasons have to do with large corporations being completely freaked out that they could be hosting a node that somebody happened to put some PII (Personal Identity Information) in some entry in a ledger three years ago, and now they’re liable under GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation). So, forget it; we’re controlling the whole chain. Which is fine, in terms of them meeting their business use cases and needs.
That’s one piece of a governance conversation that is there and won’t go away.
I think there’s another piece of governance, which is surfacing existing systems and business processes that people need to name and articulate more clearly. If you look at something like the Pan-Canadian Trust Framework; it’s done an amazing job of surfacing the processes involved in creating identity documentation for both businesses and people in the first place. It’s forcing a detailed examination of the business process steps that go into creating that, getting it all clear, and then identifying, “which ones do you have?”. It’s not so much like creating ‘new’ governance, but surfacing systems and processes that were perhaps taken for granted and making what’s happening more explicit. In that way, apples and apples, and oranges and oranges, can get compared to each other.
For example, how does the identity business process of how British Columbia creates Citizen ID cards compare with how the Province of Quebec does it? If they’re similar enough then, Quebec can trust BC’s credentials, and BC can trust Quebec’s. That’s probably a good thing to be surfacing, and having conversations about what the meaning of different credentials are, and how the creation of those assertions is done in ways that other entities can have confidence in them.
Mathieu: I like the reference to the Pan-Canadian Trust Framework, which we are familiar with, being here in Canada. I think the work that Joni has pushed forward through the DIACC (Digital Identification and Authorization Council of Canada) both in the public and private sector, has helped with finding a good way to componentize the different atomic processes, or whatever you want to call it. As you said: it’s not a ‘one mould fits all’ type of thing either. If you’re aligned on the principles and certain elements underneath there, then that’s a way that you’ll definitely be able to trust credentials coming between different ecosystems, whatever they are. There are excellent developments coming out of that, going back to your ledger comment; and I think we’ve seen a lot of momentum with the non-ledger type of stuff as well.
We have the permission ledgers, and have the public ledgers; it’s been interesting to see advancements on both sides. It appears that the Key Event Receipt Infrastructure (KERI) project is gaining a lot of momentum as well, and people seem quite interested in that. We talked a bit about the private sector: what do you see from a self-sovereign identity or decentralized identity perspective? Is there a lot of public sector or government involvement in IIW? That will help folks to know, if they’re looking to have these types of conversations.
Kaliya: Yes, but there could be more. The usual suspects are present; there’s the British Columbia guys, Tim Bouma; who else shows up that’s from government? There’s some interesting work in the states, that you know very well, with the DHS. All of those folks have been in the community for years now. I know companies all around the world, who have been talking to their own governments; whether those government folks actually show up at IIW, I don’t know. My understanding is that there are governments, or government fora, focused on digitization and digital transformation. There are conversations happening that we simply don’t hear about in the private sector, because they feel more comfortable talking to themselves. Hopefully, over time, more of those conversations will come out into more accessible fora.
The Good Health Pass Initiative
Mathieu: We touched on this earlier, and there is clearly a lot of conversation around the health credentials. Would you mind giving an overview from your point of view, on what has happened with the Good Health Pass Initiative? My perception, having not been involved, since we’re not too involved in health credentials; it’s a project that started under ID 2020 and developed a relationship with Trust over IP to execute some activity. Can you shed some light there?
Kaliya: Yes. Your description is as good as mine in terms of those details. I think that one of the inspirations for it, was to catalyze a global conversation around critical stakeholders in international travel; specifically around test results and sharing those, because the World Health Organization only has the mandate to address vaccine credentials under international regulations. They basically said straight out,” We aren’t dealing with testing.” Okay, great, but given that countries are mandating testing to get in, somebody has to deal with it.
Those entities who make international travel function needed to collaborate together to figure out how there could be a common way to figure out how to get a test from a trusted lab, and share it into a Traveler Decision System. And, to support governments on the other end being able to see those results. That’s a lot of entities, who were really clear that they didn’t want to see a global system with 40 different apps, with 40 different testing lab networks, that might require a person with three flights in a day to go and get three different tests, from three different labs, with three different apps. That isn’t going to help global travel reopen; it’s going to keep it closed. There are a lot of moving pieces. Trying to solve the legitimate business need, to figure out if countries are requiring test results to get in, and airplanes are required to get that proof before they let someone on a plane to go to Country X: how is that going to happen in a way that’s as privacy-preserving as possible, empowering to the individual as possible, and reducing the headache in terms of processing and managing that information in those existing systems?
Mathieu: There are some governments that are mandating it. There have been some announcements; at least, the US federal government announced that they weren’t going to mandate a digital wallet or digital credentials, and some states are not doing it. However, whoever the relying parties are in these transactions…
Kaliya: They’re Verifiers; they’re not relying parties. It’s very important that we call them ‘Verifiers.’ Sure, they’re relying parties, but part of this language is really important. Typically, a relying party is phoning home to an identity provider, and these systems don’t do that.
Mathieu: Hmm, I thought those terms were interchangeable; I’m coming from the space where there were banks talking about this stuff, and assuming that the Issuer /Holder /Verifier model was the same as saying Verifiers /Relying party. But, okay, I see the difference that you’re pointing out; that’s interesting.
The Impact of Culture on Architecture
Mathieu: You obviously build communities; you build communities through CCI, you’ve built communities in the identity space for many years now. Having done all this; we talked about inclusivity before, and when we talk about adoption, it’s requires thinking more and more about the role that culture plays in this area. A silly example would be an American culture versus a Chinese culture, and how different they are. What role does culture play in the adoption of this on a global scale?
Kaliya: Different cultures make different assumptions and agreements about how they operate.
One of the appealing things about the underlying architectural affordances of decentralized identity and verifiable credentials, is that it aligns with core values and current architectural realities of how identity systems work within western liberal democracies.
I’m Canadian; I was born in British Columbia. The Province of British Columbia is the authoritative source of my birth date, because they were the administrative region where I was born. My parents filed a paper with them, and they have that on file. When I talk to government leaders who are active in the space, they want to help me get that information in a form that I can reuse and share with other people. However, they don’t want to be in the middle of every transaction I do forever where I share my birthday. They take the position,” It’s none of my business. I don’t want to know, so don’t build a system where you put me in the loop.” That is quite different from an architectural choice that was made in India, with the development of their Aadhaar system. With the fundamental underlying architectural design, as originally conceived there, every time you presented your Aadhaar number, and by extension, the core demographic information within it, such as your name and your birth date, the government would see it. That’s because it is in a ‘phone home’ authentication system; meaning, you ping the government to do the authentication, to see if the person standing in front of you is the person they claim to be, through having this particular number.
You know, we have identifier systems in the west for social service provision; they’re called social security numbers in the USA, and social insurance numbers in Canada. They have all sorts of different names. I’m sure that in Europe they’re the same; this number that you use to interact with the government, to pay your taxes, to receive pension benefits, to receive disability benefits, and potentially other things. That is a long-lived, indexical number connected to your real name, so that they can figure out it’s you. However, right now, at least in Canada and the United States, there’s no way to do authentication against that number, because it’s not a network endpoint. And, they don’t want it to be. So, part of the reason for innovating these decentralized identity systems, and why western liberal democracies are interested in them, is because they support people being able to prove those things about themselves, without the government being in the loop all the time. They don’t want to be in the loop.
Mathieu: Well, Kaliya, as a last question here or a last thought; what would you tell people who are still on the fence about attending IIW, who haven’t attended it before?
Kaliya: Well, I’d enthusiastically invite you! IIW does cost money to attend, and if that is a barrier to you being able to participate, please reach out to us. We are really committed to accessibility. We also have rates that are for students, folks who are with startups in the developing world etc. We charge money, because it costs us money to put on the event — even the virtual event. There’s a lot that goes on behind the scenes in terms of the labour involved in creating the space, and collecting all the notes, and doing all the space creation and holding.
Really, it’s a little bit of the deep end; in the sense of the fact that you’re in the rooms with the people who invented this technology in the first place, but that’s a fantastic thing too. I’d encourage folks who want to explore the space to come. There are other options too: you can subscribe to my newsletter. Every week, I publish the ‘Identosphere’ with Infominer. We sort through all of the blogosphere and Twittersphere news, and highlight the best of what happened this week in the industry. There are a ton of webinars, and podcasts, and online resources, and it’s a really friendly community, too. Meaning, if you have questions and you’re confused, you can host a session about your confusion, and people will come and help you. The ‘un’ in unconference means several things; one, the agenda isn’t created until the day of the event, but also, other formats besides presentation are invited and encouraged, including people who are lost and confused, asking questions.
Mathieu: We’ll include the registration links in the show notes with Kaliya’s contact information through social as well. I will say that your Identosphere newsletter is just an amazing resource every week, so if people aren’t on that… I try to keep up to speed with stuff that’s happening; I don’t know what you do to keep up with all these different things that are happening, but, for a one-stop-shop so you don’t get overwhelmed every week with everything that’s happening, it’s the best thing to be subscribed to. I’ll link that in the show minutes, as well.
Subscribe here: https://newsletter.identosphere.net/
Kaliya, thank you so much for doing this with me today. I very much look forward to IIW.
Kaliya: Thank you so much for having me. Yes, please reach out to me if you want to get connected to the community. I’m thrilled to help you find your niche amongst all of us.
Mathieu: Thank you for listening; I hope you enjoyed the conversation as much as I did. To stay up to speed with future episode releases, please subscribe to the podcast on whatever channel you’re listening to it right now. If you have any questions or comments, please reach out to me directly. You can find me online; I’m quite active on Linkedin and Twitter, so I look forward to hearing from you. See you all next time.