...
- Mark moved intro: what is a consent receipt, inter-operable and legal to the issues #17, 18, 19 (saying that issue 17 - intro defining what the MVCR is for, is critical)
- we reviewed the index and then started on the fields - John had a suggest field that Mark did not understand
- Iain introduced powerpoint on column and row suggestions
- Iain suggested that we add the explanation in the table for what information is rendered to the receipt.
- created John added a Consent Type as a header field - Mark created issue:
- Issue #21 of adding one field to the MVCR came up as a mush. "Consent Type" for the addition of implicit and explicit field.
We had a good discussion about explicit and implicit consent and if this should be a binary consent choice where explicit is defined by a checkbox with the words "I consent to X" next to it. (which is a contract (tort law) implementation of the contract to consent. See table explicit vs implicit https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/CISWG/files/151964/Implied.vs.Expressed.pdf
- Mark proposes that privacy law and principle all have the common same requirements or explicit consent. And that the provision of a consent receipt itself with valid contact details is equivalent to partially compliant consent. for consent across all jurisdictions. Is this equivalent to implied consent? (brings up questions in the issue on github like: does implied consent also mean Express consent? if so does it require sharing and optional fields ? )
- perhaps an implied consent receipt should be defined as the MVCR ?
(Editors Note: Does this introduce the concept of the Consent Label - i.e. explicit - check-box style agreement to privacy conditions? ) Does this introduce the idea of implicit being expressed (i consent response in some manner) ? I.e. - the sharing and control of the data is assumed to be the operator and it assumed that the operator is trusted.
- This depends oh what exactly constitutes the definition of explicit and implied consent for the MVCR. (critical question for the MVCR)
- is the receipt passive - in that if it is received and it is valid it achieves the MVCR explicit consent definition?
- or does the receipt have to be active - in that if it is received and if the user clicks consent in the form, the consent is receipt valid for explicit consent?
- I think we have a passive and active consent description for the MVCR perhaps this is the difference between implied and explicit consent we want to proceed with?
- John presented diagram with examples of explicit and implicit consent. Refereing to the practice of combing multiple consent purpose into one implied conent.
(notes were removed from here into the github issue)
Action Item Review
- Mark Lizar - Update wiki with revised method for agenda creation -
- Mark Lizar work on timeline and roadmap for v1 - and present next week
- John WunderlichIain Henderson, Mary HodderMark Lizar Homework - look at examples of previous specs - like Tim Berners - URI, the ICAL format, Email, etc as examlples of do's and don't for spec dev. look at and discuss issues. . (from respective perspectives)
- John WunderlichIain Henderson Mary HodderMark Lizar --> proposal for offline discussion - if someone needs more time on an agenda item, then that person can table this issue to the next meeting, (1 week) before being discuss on the agenda
...
-
Action: Mark Lizar (Unlicensed) create issue in GithUb and send topic to list
Action: iainh1 NA (Unlicensed) short note on suggested columns to the list - i.e. descrption of rendered field in receipt
action: iainh1 NA (Unlicensed) short note on removing field *which field and why?
Action: iainh1 NA (Unlicensed) implementation feed back - please provide short summary of field descriptions
Action: Mark Lizar (Unlicensed) put field changes to the list prior to call next week if there are any.
- Action John Wunderlich and Mark Lizar (Unlicensed) chat to review fields before next meeting
...