2018-08-09 Meeting notes (CR)

Date

2018-08-09

Status of Minutes

Approved

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

Attendees

Voting

Andrew Hughes
Mark Lizar
Oscar Santolalla
Jim Pasquale

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: Director's Corner: 2018: July Work + Discussion Group Activity 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 min	Interoperable Consent Receipt demo at MyData Conference	All	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
- Viewer exists, able to read consent receipts, working on the UI
- Can consume api.consentreceipt.org and v1.1 CR
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
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?
- https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/secevent/about/
- https://coelition.org/business/resources/visualising-life/
- https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/28297
- secevent 'Event Token' jwt formats should be investigated
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