Date
2019-07-10
Status of Minutes
DRAFT
Approved at: <<Insert link to minutes showing approval>>
Agenda
Call to order
Roll Call & Determination of quorum status
Agenda bashing
Kantara Organization updates
WG Motions
Discussion
WG path forwards
WG & publication scope
Upcoming conferences and events
All Other Business (AOB)
Adjourn
Attendees
Voting
Andrew Hughes
Marco Venuti
Non-Voting
Regrets:
Quorum Status
The meeting was not quorate
Voting participants
Participant roster (CMS) - Quorum is 4 of 6 as of 2018-04-02
(Voting status: Marco Venuti, Jim Pasquale, Andrew Hughes, John Wunderlich, Kate Downing)
Discussion Items
| | | |
|---|
5 min | Call to order Roll call Agenda bashing Organization updates
| Chair |
|
5 min | WG Motions A Quorum required | Chair | Motion to ... Moved by: Seconded: Discussion: Result:
|
5 min | Introductions | All | Welcome!
|
30 min | WG path forward | All | Discussion about pressure points and the demand for 'consent' Discussion on seeing 'consent' requirements in some RFPs - purchasing Also - Service providers (data processors) are starting to insist that Brands (the data controllers) have valid 1st party consent from consumers (data controller to data processor demands)
ACH asked Marco for ratio of wants consent stuff versus not asking for consent stuff in rfps ACH asked Marco for sample language - examples of how company RFPs ask for consent management-related stuff Andrew speculates - what if CMS WG produced a boilerplate clause setting out how to ask for consent management stuff? James - one aspect is when a customer 'signs up' with a provider - explicit; another aspect is passive tracking; this is the omnichannel user consent management problem - the person might set different instructuctions on every different channel the customer connects to the provider (e.g. in person vs mobile app) Lisa & Eve Maler have written a paper that sets out 'consent' needs to evolve - interesting supporting material James - identification of the user is a challenge that intersects with the explicit/active consent management topic This is a big challenge for companies Companies are seeking a solution to lightweight but robust identification solutions - rather than asking for an emailed picture of a passport or ID card Notes that collection of passive identifiers via setting a cookies etc is problematic when those passive identifiers are sent onwards to a third party that has the capability of linking those passive identifiers to actual individuals. If the identifiers cannot be linked to real persons (because they are not sent onwards) then they are less problematic. Companies want risk mitigation - this can mean unification of the many 'consents' that a person gives to a company due to many channels
|
5 min | Upcoming conferences and events | Andrew | Events that Kantara will have an active role: https://kantarainitiative.org/events/ |
5 min | AOB | Chair | ACTIONS: |
| Adjourn | Chair | Next WG meeting Wednesday, XXXXXXXX, 2019 10:00 Eastern Daylight Time / 14:00 GMT https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/276734989
|