Future Foundation Model
Phase 4 of the Ecosystem Roadmap envisions a mature, multi-stakeholder ecosystem where PTI stewardship is anchored in an independent foundation rather than a single commercial operator.
This document describes a target model for discussion, not an incorporated entity today. Specific legal form SHOULD be chosen with counsel in relevant jurisdictions.
Why a foundation
| Risk without foundation | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Steward acquisition shifts priorities | Asset lock-in and mission charter |
| Trademark capture | Foundation-owned marks with public policy |
| Specification fork on vendor exit | Neutral home for RFC IP and test suites |
| Weak institutional trust | Multi-seat board with implementer and public interest |
Foundations succeed when they steward assets: not when they operate production trust platforms.
Design principles for Phase 4
Adapted from mature open ecosystems without copying a single template:
- Mission lock. Charter prioritizes vendor-neutral specification stewardship
- Minimal operational scope. No mandatory cloud; optional shared test infrastructure only
- Multi-stakeholder board. Implementers, users, academia, public interest
- Transparent funding. Dues and grants disclosed; no pay-to-play RFC votes
- Trademark clarity. Certification marks owned by foundation (Trademark and Branding)
- Implementer freedom: Build Your Own PTI remains unrestricted
Proposed structure
Board composition (illustrative)
| Seat type | Count | Selection |
|---|---|---|
| Implementers | 3 | Elected by certified implementers |
| Institutional users | 2 | Elected by user council |
| Public interest / privacy | 2 | Nominated by civil-society shortlist |
| Academic | 1 | Rotating appointment |
| Founding steward alumni | 1 | Transitional ≤5 years |
No single organization SHOULD hold >20% board votes.
Assets to transfer
| Asset | Notes |
|---|---|
| Trademark portfolio | PTI™, certification marks |
| RFC publication infrastructure | Repo, website, archival |
| Conformance test suites | Canonical test IP |
| Security disclosure program | SRG charter and contacts |
| Endowment or funding agreements | Multi-year runway target |
Commercial product code (e.g., TumiTrust) MAY remain with respective companies under separate licenses.
Membership and funding
Individual participation in Working Group MUST remain free.
Organizational membership MAY fund:
- Test infrastructure and CI
- Legal and trademark maintenance
- Interoperability events
- Administrative staff (minimal)
Membership MUST NOT purchase:
- RFC approval votes
- Exclusive certification rights
- Mandatory implementer licensing
Relationship to existing bodies
| Function | Phase 4 home |
|---|---|
| RFC process | Foundation-hosted Working Group |
| Certification | Foundation CPB + accredited labs |
| Reference implementations | Independent vendors (including TumiTrust) |
| Production registries | Operators, not foundation |
Transition triggers
Foundation formation SHOULD begin when at least three conditions are met:
- ≥3 independently certified implementations across ≥2 legal jurisdictions
- ≥12 months of public Working Group elections
- Documented annual budget and trademark inventory
- Signed letter of intent from ≥5 funding members for 3-year runway
- Working Group supermajority vote to proceed
Until then, founder stewardship continues under published governance.
Alternatives considered
| Model | Benefit | Drawback |
|---|---|---|
| Hosted at existing standards body | Legal maturity | Slower, less domain focus |
| Consortium with paywall | Fast funding | Weak public trust |
| Informal GitHub org forever | Low overhead | Trademark and liability gaps |
| Independent foundation | Neutral long-term home | Setup cost |
PTI SHOULD prefer independent foundation unless a compelling hosted-deal preserves neutrality and speed.
Next steps (pre-Phase 4)
- Publish annual stewardship transparency report
- Grow independent implementer council
- Draft foundation charter for public comment
- Engage legal counsel on trademark transfer
- Pilot elected Maintainer process