2014-03-18 Meeting Notes
- Mark Lizar (Unlicensed)
- Former user (Deleted)
Date
Mar 17, 2014
Attendees
Goals
- Open Notice/CISWG: Intellectual Property Agreement
- Proposals for the Week
- Open Notice Website Update
- Consent Receipt Request Form
Discussion Items
| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
Discussion Item 1: Open Notice/CISWG: Intellectual Property Agreement
Valentino: Great opportunity to define the project, build on the possibility of free and open project; This is needed since, as Colette noticed, we were using multiple platforms for what is essentially the same conversation
Mark: We need to clarify the modes and spaces of discussion for all future members; need to be explicit about integrating contributions in CISWG; the CISWG is important because only a small number of people work on the Consent Receipt and Registry, but everything else belongs on Open Notice; Hugo mentioned that he favours an open source model, but this is too broad, so we need to have a discussion about what is open and how it will be open.
Valentino: We have joined on the Internet under a common cause and shared global vision, but the business model is not common to all members; Consent Receipt has features that are interesting to each member, so it might be beneficial for contributing members to outline their interests and contributions to the project
Mark: The Receipt is certainly very complex terrain with multiple interests, and the registry is all the more viable as a business model, but we need to protect the collective work so that no other person or company can claim ownership or create a license over it, preventing us from being able to engage with companies and eventual clients in a fair way eventually, the Kantara agreement offers that protection
Valentino: CISWG will require some consideration
Discussion Item 2: Proposals for the Week
Mark: We have put forward a funding proposal to TSB for Open Notice in physical spaces; Mary is submitting a funding proposal to Knight News Challenge today; we have drafted initial text for EC Funding
Innis: Seeking clarification on name (ON, ONI, ON Group?) and affirms need to streamline the way we present the group and the concept
Mary: The issue could be arising from the multiple ways we have been discussing the group/collective versus the concept
Mark: We should put this out to the group (Innis: in the next 48 hours) so that we can decide on an official full name
Mary/Innis: Worth separating the name from the concept; and will help streamline future applications (previous ones are good as is)
Mark: Changing the group name could be challenging in terms our brand recognition and website name, proposes to keep it as is and refer to the concept at ON and the group as ON initiative (no disagreement)
Mary: Also, there is a another great Google Group funding opportunity coming up at county level in California without restrictions on participants, will share the link after submitting Knight NF proposal (Mark will add it to the Funding list)
Discussion Item 3: Open Notice Website Update
Mark: In process of updating website, asks if Innis spoke to Carl
Innis: Has not yet spoken to Carl; Since Par is out of the picture at the moment, it is difficult to get in touch; Website coding / code-redesign doesn’t need that much change but hopefully Carl will be able to help with content, specifically map/ecosystem
Mark: Great, suggests holding off on that discussion till next week
Innis: Undertaken some content work, trying to avoid repetition
Mary: There are two schools of thought re repetition; the first is enabling understanding by repeating point multiple times, the second is to say it clearly only once
Innis/Mary: Agree that website should be streamlined and avoid repetition
Mark: Keep this in mind while developing the content over the next few days, the idea is to get it up to date to start inviting more members as soon as possible
Innis: Use the ON [insert word, if any] as a springboard for invitation
Mark: Intention to start inviting new members by the end of the week
Discussion Item 4: Consent Receipt Request Form
Mark: Updates; How to make this go viral? EFF is looking of campaign suggestions, withdrawing consent on the same date is a potential suggestion; Phil Pearse came to the office last week, we should make a list of mile stone attacks and how to make project it go viral; Will draft UK version soon, but there is a need to automate the process
Valentino: Working on user-space to make it easier to work on Consent Receipt, minimising steps; Meeting this week with designer who is good at simplifying
Mark: It was great to drop the form we’ve created into the tool that Valentino is creating so that it can be customised to different jurisdictions
Valentino: There are options and providers for this but there is no big database of owners, so this should be followed in a more extensive conversation in CISWG mailing list
Varia:
Innis: Where does the ‘control’ aspect of personal data transparency come from?
Mark: Knowledge of data use allows for individual to exercise and engage with policy providers (i.e. withdraw consent)
Mary: In the workflow, user would have access to service-report comparisons and with this insight they would be able to choose not to give consent; simplifies knowledge of what you are consenting to and being to revoke consent is the control and will push for market competition; the two pieces of data control
Mark: Common Terms has a button to see policies before consent; this can be extended to developing responsive policies
Innis: Pre-consent description seems very clear, but post-consent control seems less clear; Risk that we will not be able to meet our promises
Mary: We are describing a system we want to build in grant proposal, rather than describing something that we can already provide; Revoking consent does not have to be complex and can simply be an email request
Innis: Email or Twitter based system sounds interesting and simpler
Mark: We definitely have a lot of work to do in terms of the withdrawing consent, but many jurisdictions require that this be done in writing so this echoes that we need to develop a minimum cross-jurisdiction method
Action Items