This page sets out:

the 'framework' charter work items proposed on the formation of the WG,
a list of member-proposed work items derived from the Group's initial weeks of discussion,
a number of shorter-term deliverables driven by external events (e.g. responses to consultation).

The three sets of items are complementary, not exclusive.

POLL "Candidate Work Items"

Charter Items

White papers and framework documents such as:

Privacy Guidance Document to bridge the gap between CPO, technical and policymaker communities, their perspectives and language (suggestion from Iain, this should include CMO and digital lead - they are at the sharp end on issues like behavioural tracking)
Privacy Management Framework
Privacy Assurance Module to complement Identity Assurance Framework

Stakeholder/outreach activities such as:

Regular advisory event to solicit strategic guidance
face-to-face Work Group meetings
CPO and policymaker workshops

(subject to budget)

Member-proposed Items

Model Privacy Policy

Consent and Anti-Patterns

Privacy Risk Assessment

Privacy Asurance Framework to accompany Identity Assurance Framework during certification audits (likely to be need flexibliity to address requirements of different jurisdictions)

Support for ISO SC27 activities

Enhancing Certificate Semantics (DIFI)

Identifiers in Public-Sector e-Procurement (DIFI)

Acting as counter-point and reviewer of individual-driven information sharing agreements (as will be developed by the Information Sharing Work Group), with a view to ultimately having inter-operable, machine readable, icon-enabled privacy and individual-driven information sharing policies.

Leadership-Council-proposed Items

1. Eve: As illuminated by the GSA/ICAM Identity
Trust Framework, perhaps the P3WG could explore
the idea of "Levels of Protection" and "Privacy Policy
Agreements", perhaps coordinating with IAWG.

2. Joe: Following the work of Jeff Jonas about the
privacy concerns related to "Space Time Travel" 2,
perhaps the P3WG could consider authoring a white
paper addressing related privacy issues.

3. Brett: How to manage liaisons with other external
bodies with respect to privacy standards (eg. privacy
maturity capability model at ISO/IEC 29190) 3

4. Colin: Perhaps the P3WG could provide a proactive
scan across KI WGs to look for various privacy issues
and raise flags.

5. Bob: Perhaps the P3WG could explore producing a
white paper on what kind of assurance levels could
be assigned to various government operations
(presumably focused on the U.S. government).

6. Brett: A useful tool would be a published and
maintained list of key international public policy
debates on Identity (i.e. who is doing what work
where).

Short-term responses

FTC December 09 privacy workshop response

"Madrid Declaration" position statement

EU consultation response

Scottish Parliament privacy consultation response

Browser not supported