Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata



Status of Minutes


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



  • Jim Pasquale
  • Lisa LeVasseur
  • Mary Hodder
  • Mark Lizar
  • Oscar Santolalla


  • Chris Olsen
  • Nancy Lush
  • Tom Jones
  • Burak Serdar (observer)


  • Andrew Hughes

Quorum Status

Meeting was not quorate 

Participant Roster (2016) - As of 2019-05-15 quorum is 6 of 11

(Voting participants are: Iain Henderson, Mary Hodder, Mark Lizar, Jim Pasquale (C), John Wunderlich (VC), Andrew Hughes (VC), Oscar Santolalla, Richard Gomer, Paul Knowles, Lisa LeVasseur, James Aschberger)

Discussion Items





4 mins
  • Roll call
  • Agenda bashing
  • Please remember to update your entry on the Consent Receipts Implementations Page - this is a major landing point for external viewers and raises awareness of the CIS WG work and your product too
  • Update on Charter refresh work Review doc in draft
  • AOB
  • Discuss next steps for receipt specification 
2 minsMotion to approve prior minutesNot quorate

MOTION: To approve all and any outstanding meeting minutes requiring approval.

Moved by: 




10 min
  • Organization updates

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

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

  • Suggestion: Make one CISWG meeting per month dedicated to Demos plus updates from other related standards work
    • Waiting for some recommendations 
0 minNews about new implementationsAll
  • None new 
0 minProcessing feature requests for specification work
  • None this week 
 minNews and HappeningsJim

0  minDemo status updateall

Recording from Identiverse is now available - link to come soon (might only be available to conference attendees - will request a YouTube version from the organizers).

0 minSpecification update approach

See a flowchart version of this here:

45 minWG Charter RefreshJim
  • Jim walked through the latest draft of the "Information Sharing Work Group"
    • Discussed sections: scope, purpose, deliverables, encouraging people to begin developing new projects
  • The WG needs to move forward on the new Charter gaining a consensus and submitting this updated direction to the Kantara LC ASAP P1 Charter review and process for moving forward to submit to Kantara LC are complete for final review needing a simple consensus to move forward with submission to the Kantara LC for approval. As Chair the following implamentation for consensus is as follows:
    • Discussion on a topic proceeds until the chairs believe that all points of view have been expressed and the group has considered the variety of information presented. Depending on the topic, this discussion may take a couple of days or a couple of weeks, or more.
    • The chairs believe that the group is ready to come to a decision they announce a Call for Consensus by email to the Working Group's mailing list. The Call must remain open for a minimum of two working days to the next scheduled weekly call. 
    • The Call is open to responses from all group members.
    • The Call will be for a single topic, will clearly indicate that it is a Call for Consensus, and will contain pointers to the relevant discussion.
    • A resolution recorded in a WG teleconference may precede a Call for Consensus, but it may not replace the official Call for Consensus.
    • Issues that are regard as an editorial by the Chairs do not require a Working Group decision in order for the Chairs to address, and thus do not require a Call for Consensus. If there is disagreement by participants on whether something is editorial this can be brought to the attention of the chairs either privately or in the context of the wider group.
      • If no objections are received by the deadline, the draft decision becomes a formal decision of the Working Group.
      • If objections are received but the chairs believe the objections have already been considered as far as is possible and reasonable, and the reviewers providing the objections can "live with” the decision, the draft decision becomes a formal decision of the Working Group.
      • If objections are received that the chairs believe present substantive new information or if the chairs believe there is not a clear consensus in the Working Group, they will reopen the discussion.
      • If working group member(s) continue to disagree and the chairs do not believe it presents substantive new information, or it does not meet the criteria established for adding new normative content, the chairs may decide the draft decision becomes a formal decision of the Working Group despite the objection.
10 min

Upcoming events update

Mark Should report

Link to "Consent & Authorisation Survey" wiki page:

Survey To Capture Terms of Authorisation: Consent, Permission and Agreement

5 minAOBJim

We need a tutorial on Git-Hub navigation and use (John, Kate and ???)

Next meeting

*** Next call 2019-10-24 10:30 am Eastern DAYLIGHT Time

  • MOTION: To adjourn 
    • Moved: 
    • Second: 
    • Discussion: None
  • Motion carried