Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 7 Next »

2017-01 (January 2017) Meetings

This page records the Discussion Group's meeting notes for January 2017. We meet Tuesdays at 7:30am PT / 10:30am ET / 3:30pm UK / 4:30pm CET and Thursdays at 11am PT / 2pm ET / 7pm UK / 8pm CET for 60 minutes. US times are normative during daylight saving time changes. We use Kantara Line A (US +1-805-309-2350, Skype +99051000000481, international options, web interface, more info, code 4022737) and http://join.me/findthomas for screen sharing. See the DG calendar for our full meeting schedule. Previous meeting minutes are here: July, August, September, October, November, December.

Tuesday, January 17

Agenda:

Attending: Eve, Devon, Matisse, Marco, JohnW, Susan, Adrian

AI: Eve: Mark the old version of the report as truly obsolete now.

We commented on the OPAL/Enigma section for Thomas to work on.

We commented on the UMA Legal Toolkits section for Eve to work on.

We commented on the Consent Receipts section for JohnW to work on.

The UMA Legal subgroup may try to have an ad hoc F2F meeting during #RSAC.

Thursday, January 12

Agenda:

Attending: Eve, Thomas, Kathleen, Devon, Adrian, Colin, JohnW

The current exercise is to rationalize the entire ToC and outline. Devon has moved over all the text from the old report – thank you, Devon!

We started discussing Verifiable Claims again; Adrian has gotten some more information about the role of Linked Data as a differentiator vs. JWT.

Devon and Kathleen are working on OPAL/Enigma content. Kathleen has gotten the okay to bring on HL7 work around creating trust contracts on the fly for, e.g., a research repository controller and a researcher (or anyone) comes with a "safe query" (for differential privacy).

Devon offers to fill in the Legal Contracts section. Excellent!

AIs for Tuesday's meeting:

  • Eve: Write UMA and Sovrin section
  • Devon: Write Legal Contracts section
  • Kathleen: Work on HL7 subsection
  • Kathleen: Expand JohnW's use case section
  • JohnW: Continue working on his technology/technique sections
  • Eve: (stretch goal) Revise Intro

We agreed it's a good idea for us to have our own Skype chat room and not barge in on UMA chat room, so if anyone has a Skype handle that Eve ("xmlgrrl") doesn't know about, please feel free to send an invite to her.

Tuesday, January 10

Agenda:

Attending: Eve, Adrian, Matisse, Thomas, Susan, JohnW

Eve gave an update on the efforts to move to the new report doc. Devon is helping Thomas and Eve with some key overall editing tasks.

Adrian described the value proposition of Verifiable Claims: It "kills the need for federation" because, in a triple-blind manner, the RP can verify a claim directly from the issuer. Thomas's and Eve's analysis didn't find this to be true in any special way; the technology looks extremely similar to JWTs, for example, and the notion of an RP is a federation notion and requires trust to be established somehow. Adrian will review, discuss with Manu (the draft spec author), and get back to the group.

Thomas has filled out the OPAL/Enigma section; no analysis section yet.

What's the best way to drive to consensus on the analysis of each section?

Thomas, Eve, and Devon will continue editing, and will draw the DG's attention to new sections for timely review. Scheduled meetings will focus on analysis and review.

Thursday, January 5

Agenda:

Attending: Eve, Adrian, Susan, Thomas, Colin, Devon

AI: Eve: Put a note in our wiki report version to redirect to our GDoc version, or remove it entirely.

Taqanu has put in for Kantara Identity and Privacy Incubator (KIPI) funding. This is an initiative for identity and privacy funding (was CCICADA). They describe themselves as:

"Our goal is to create a mobile banking service for people without a fixed address, to help provide access to the financial ecosystem. Eventually opening communication with and scaling to markets in emerging economies. Our core offerings are: ++ Free debit card for anyone, anywhere ++ Accounts in every country within the same bank ++ Easy account setup ++ Personal Identification management ++ Blockchain (BC) based, transparent ledger"

Hence seemingly a good match for our use case criteria. Colin will introduce them to Eve in email, and she'll send them the questionnaire. SecureKey has gotten investment for blockchain-based efforts, and they are on the Kantara board, so let's at least ask them for feedback on our report, if not as well contributing a use case; Colin will reach out and cc Susan (whose connection is through Mary Hodder and IDESG). Susan can also send the questionnaire to Bitpesa, and we'll see how much time we have to combine what we get.

Discussion of the prescription use case submitted by Adrian (which Eve will forward to the list, for full context): By "The current introduction of hospitals and other institutional intermediaries into the prescription order process" is meant identity management/authentication (for checking the physician's identity) and the management of EHRs (because the prescription is generated within the EHR system). There is rent-seeking by the systems that have performed this consolidation. The goal with the use case is to have the clinician use as many as three apps or more, e.g. one for login, one for proving you deserve to prescribe, one for payment, etc. The idea is that they're horizontal and you'd have way fewer in total.

Adrian has commented that the Sedona report's logical model of EHR discovery trust (p. 64 here) doesn't account for decentralization, which blockchain can enable. Sedona is an influencer on e-discovery; lawyers and Google and MSFT and others do pay attention to it.  So we may want to reflect on this in our Observations section, given that we have several use cases that have implications for health. We recognize that health data itself wouldn't be stored on a blockchain, but the generally accepted approach would be to store a transaction record stating something happened, then a later transaction record stating something else happened (or even some previous record had to be corrected), etc.

Tuesday, January 3

Agenda:

Attending: Eve, Thomas, Kathleen, Matisse, Thorsten, Adrian, Susan, Devon (finishing law school, studying data privacy), SteveO, JohnW

Our DG's life is extended just for this next month.

Kathleen points to the 21st Century Cures Act (house bill link). It calls for a trust framework. Adrian notes that it mentions longitudinal health records, which is a novel challenge in the patient context vs. clinical research (subjects). See his blog post.

To pick a fintech use case, can we find one with an individual perspective vs. an institutional perspective? Can we pick one from Sedona that has the right characteristics? Susan notes that Everledger is working to ensure that the ethical diamond use case is protecting workers etc., not just tracking the diamonds. What about BanQu ("Dignity Through Identity") as a financial use case for empowerment? Susan has talked to the principal.

AI: Eve to send the questionnaire to Susan for sharing with the BanQu person and to Adrian for sharing with the Consensys people.

AI: Thomas: Fill out the questionnaire for Enigma/Opal.

AI: Adrian: Fill out the questionnaire for his use case (and/or write the full use case! (smile) ).

AI: Eve: Flesh out report outline (hopefully together with Thomas), completing AIs in report comments, before our Thursday meeting.

  • No labels