2018-08-09 Meeting notes (CR)

Owned by Former user (Deleted)
Last updated: Dec 12, 2019 by jim pasquale

Date

2018-08-09

Status of Minutes

Approved

Approved at: 2019-12-12 Meeting notes (CR) DRAFT

Attendees

Voting

Non-Voting

  • Sylvester
  • Colin Wallis
  • Sal D'Agostino
  •  

Regrets

Quorum Status


Meeting was <<>> quorate


Voting participants


Participant Roster (2016) - Quorum is 5 of 9 as of 2018-07-12

Iain Henderson, Mary Hodder, Harri Honko, Mark Lizar, Jim Pasquale, John Wunderlich, Andrew Hughes, Oscar Santolalla, Richard Gomer

Discussion Items

Time

Item

Who

Notes

4 mins
  • Roll call
  • Agenda bashing
Former user (Deleted)
  • Dev Team status
  • Sequence diagram and roles status
  • Storyboard status
  • Stage narrative status
  • Team issues and show stoppers
5 min
  • Organization updates
All

Please review these blogs offline for current status on Kantara and all the DG/WG:

There is a new wiki page that will hold all the known implementations of Consent Receipts - Please update the page or inform Andrew of your implementation.

Planning a Member Plenary meeting October 26-ish San Francisco (Friday after IIW)

  • Are there specific cross-group items you'd like to propose to work on?
40 minInteroperable Consent Receipt demo at MyData ConferenceAll

1) Dev team status

Google drive folder for export/import of consent receipts

  • digi.me
    • Code to export is complete, not exposed in the UI yet
  • Consentua
    • Not present
  • Ubisecure
    • CR generation in prototype now - sample file uploaded
    • Should have demo account set up by August 13 week
  • OpenConsent
    • Progress
    • Writing a mini-spec to map CR field names to a set of GDPR terms
  • Trunomi
    • Not present
  • clym
    • Not present



2) Sequence diagram and roles status

  • Any questions?



3) Storyboard status




4) Stage narrative status

  • Andrew has not started - aiming for end of next week



5) Team Issues and showstoppers discussion

OpenConsent raised an issue:

The result is that there is no PII. Controller name in a receipt produced spec an viewed in the viewer.

From OC -viewer conformance input - The spec does not clearly differentiate between child objects (or values) and their parents. Thus the spec defines piiController as an array. What it then does is list a number of other fields WITHOUT indicating that they are a grouped object that is what is in the array.
From what I can tell 4.4.2 (line 319) refers to an array, this array is comprised of objects (i.e. more than one field) which is made of 4.4.3 - 4.4.9 (lines 323 to 358).
However in the spec there are simply a long list of fields with no indication as to which are children of others. 4.4.10 (line 359) for example, has no indication as to whether it is a part of the piiController object (4.4.3 - 4.4.9) or is a sibling of piiControllers (4.4.2)

Solution
piiController - should an array of piiController objects - and this should be explicity stated in the spec

piiController should not be a string, neither should service or purpose - these fields should also be reviewed to be an object .. Might also have a name field (or description field in the object that is a string.


  • Call notes on the issue:
    • The Page 16 content is a JSON Schema, not an example
    • The issue is resolved - no changes required to the spec
    • An example JSON file would be helpful, especially if there are joint controllers

AOB
  • Colin - UK ICO grant funding proposal call is open now - AdUnity, OpenConsent interested in this
    • Colin was on the bidders call earlier this week

    • https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/what-we-do/grants-programme-2018/

      I (Andrew) quickly reviewed the Grant info linked above, and I think there might be a fit.

      The possible research topic and solution might be:
      - purposes categories and examples for one or more industry verticals
      - use of consent receipts to inform data subjects of their ongoing rights
      - surveys of opinions of use of consent as a justification for data processing
      - research into standardization of consent management (including market surveys to document current practices)

      Submission deadline is August 17.


Next meeting

2018-08-16 same time, same number

GOAL IS TO HAVE ALL DEMO PARTICIPANTS JOIN THE CALL TO WORK OUT ANY MAJOR ISSUES

 

From 2018-08-02 call:

  • digi.me
  • Consentua
    • Still on track - deciding on timing of code change deployment on Monday - some front end work to go after that
  • Ubisecure
    • Still on track
  • OpenConsent
  • Trunomi
    • Still on track - JSON examples early next week
  • clym

From 2018-07-26 call:

  • digi.me
    • n/a
  • Consentua
    • Developers have promised CR output Week of August 6-10 - we will be looking for the output in the shared google folder (smile)
  • Ubisecure
    • n/a
  • OpenConsent
    • Viewer has been started - looking to get receipts from others
    • Target is August 15 to be able to display CRs
    • Open call to suggest features for OC to include - provide them this week if possible
  • Trunomi
    • currently in their 2-week dev sprint - target completion week of August 6-10
  • clym
    • n/a
  • Telus
    • Resource and scheduling estimates for creating an external CR for an existing app

AOB

  • Q: in the spec, Services is described as a 'business service'. But these days, companies are describing this as a 'category of business purposes'.
    • A: 'Service' is the name and description of the service - an unspecified field - mainly for humans
    • A: 'Purpose category' is to describe the business service purposes
    • A: If there is a Service with the same Purposes and the same Data as anonther Service, then they are indistinguishable.
  • Q: How are we envisioning asking the 'do you consent to this' question?
    • A: The Notice part of the flows have not been worked out yet in this group, deliberately.
  • Q: Have we decided on what format/location/interface will be recommended for the 'exported' CRs?
    • A: Right now, it's files in the Downloads folder (or a user-selected folder) - the 'real' discussion about this will be deferred until after the demo in August.
  • Q: How does COEL spec relate to the IETF secevent RFC?
  • mydata session - Joss
    • OneTrust, Nixu, JLINC, Kantara
    • Andrew asked for 20 minutes for the demo
    • Joss suggests that the Kantara demo goes last then transitions to Q&A for all
    • Q: Are there special provisions needed on the mydata web site to help people interact with the demo?
    • Need to focus the mydata demo presentation to trigger 'delivery' and action instead of 'interest'


From 2018-07-19 call:

  • digi.me
    • new internal release v2.2 is available this week
    • some enhancements to Consent Access functions - some export functions
    • created field mapping versus specification - spreadsheet has been available for a few weeks
    • has new spreadsheet with updated JSON file info - has sent to David and Andrew for pre-review
    • digi.me has drafted a 'vendor extension' - proposal for new objects to be added to the spec
    • digi.me is done
  • Consentua
    • Service is ready to go - just need to create a format for the CR spec - a configuration change, not a code change
    • work planned to start next week - planning session - will have more status on Monday
  • Ubisecure
    • Minimal prototype - no CR in product
    • They will use the CR generator to create a sample app - a bookshop
    • CR will be downloadable
  • OpenConsent
    • underway to create a Viewer plus Viewer API
    • scheduling estimates underway - target is to demo this at the interop demo
  • Trunomi (via Andrew)
    • currently in their 2-week dev sprint - will have code after next week
  • Telus
    • Resource and scheduling estimates for creating an external CR for an existing app