Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 3 Next »

Date

2017-04-20

Status of Minutes

DRAFT

Approved at: <<Insert link to minutes showing approval>>

Attendees

Voting

  • Andrew Hughes
  • Harri Honko
  • Jim Pasquale
  • Iain Henderson
  • Mark Lizar
  • John Wunderlich

 

Non-Voting

  • David Turner
  • Jens Kremer
  • Samuli 
  • Robert Lapes
  • Sal D'Agostino


Quorum Status

Meeting was quorate

 

 

Voting participants

Participant Roster (2016) - Quorum is 4 of 7 as of 2016-10-06

Iain Henderson, Mary Hodder, Harri Honko, MarkLizar, Jim Pasquale, John Wunderlich, Andrew Hughes

Discussion Items

Not enough attendees to conduct the meeting. Agenda items deferred to next week.

TimeItemWhoNotes
4 mins
  • Roll call
  • Agenda bashing
Former user (Deleted) 
1 min
  • Organization updates
All

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

1 min
  • Status of Consent Receipt Specification v1
Former user (Deleted)
  • All Member Ballot is now open - closes on Monday, April 24, 2017
    • Reminders going out now 
15 min
  • Discuss myData team comments
Harri Honko

Note from prior meeting: myData EU-based lawyer commented that the CR v1.0 draft has elements that are based on UK/US Common Law, rather than civil codes (GDPR)

 

2017-04-20 notes:

  • Jens Kremer - has provided review comments on the v1.0 with respect to GDPR fit
    • Had done a related PhD recently
    • A review from an independent viewpoint - with no particular prior knowledge of the Kantara context
    • Consider this as an external perspective - from the possible viewpoint
  • Main issue might be that a dichotomy is starting to emerge between common law systems versus public law systems (state regulation, rights-based)
    • The CR work takes an individual centred /common law perspective - and also an Organizational perspective
      • This will look strange to an EU lawyer
      • Fundamental difference: 
        • Common law approach - the consent is not regulated - e.g. give the people the information and the people can agree on anything
        • Public law approach - this is regulated and not up to the participants to decide - there are absolutes - the person cannot agree to arbitrary conditions
          • This is grounded in the idea that privacy and data protection is a fundamental right - this is in contrast to taking a contract approach
    • It might be possible to create a specific profile that is constrained to the GDPR rules
      • This might be a case of reconsidering how the definitions are stated to ensure that they fit with the GDPR terminology (CR v1.0 uses ISO definitions
30 minDiscuss work backlog priorities for CR v1.1All

Consent Receipt v1.1 Work Backlog

  • Discussed items 1-11 on the CR v1.1 backlog list

 

Parked notes about v1.1 approach from previous meetings:

  • Mary
    • The caution about "Purposes lists" and "Sensitive data types" needs to be resolved - must be very cautious about how these are displayed to the user, especially if it's sensitive data - need to create recommendations
  • Mark
    • Need to set up a backlog - and define a work plan and schedule
    • Set a date for CR v1.1
    • Need to write guidance on spec usage
  • Need consensus on
    • Prioritization of backlog
    • Need to consider any issues that are used for GDPR implementation
    • The original agreement was to do 6-month epics
 

 

 

  • No labels