Page tree
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 4 Next »

Kantara ISI WG Teleconference

Date and Time | Attendees | Apologies | Agenda | Minutes | Next Meeting

Date and Time

  • Date:
  • Time: 10:30 Eastern Time



Participant Roster - As of 2020-02-20, the quorum is 5 of 8

(Voting participants are: Andrew Hughes  Iain Henderson, Jim Pasquale, John WunderlichKenneth Klingenstein, Lisa LeVasseur, Mary HodderOscar Santolalla, )


Jim Pasquale  

Kenneth Klingenstein

John Wunderlich

Iain Henderson

Lisa LeVasseur


Colin Wallis

Kate Downing


  1. Andrew Hughes
  2. Oscar Santolalla (sabbatical) 
  3. James Aschberger (sabbatical)
  4. Mary Hodder

Weekly Agenda (Bi-Weekly from 2/4- )

  1. Call to order
  2. ISI Work Group IPR Policy
  3. Today's Agenda
    1. ON HOLD TO POST 1/29 We’ll be doing a quick recap of The Draft PDURF document comments to accept
      1. Accept all changes in the consolidated document created by Kate.
      2. Move DRAFT PDURF to Kantara format (done)
      3. Circulate that internally within the WG
      4. Identify a use case, based on a real-world experience of implementing CR 1.1.
        1. Current target Use Case Peter Davis Airside Mobile CR v1.0 (Andrew pursuing this avenue)
      5. Conduct a workshop, led by Joe, on using the report to build a profile using the document to identify any issues with the document.
      6.  publish a document post-workshop
      7. Begin to Reviewing/editing with adds/deletes/changes as profiles of the Data Model as profiles are submitted
    2. The subject of Agreement Characteristics in the new section called Characteristics for Respectful Tech, with a recommendation for Ken and Lisa to drive a workshop to cross-reference
      1. You are all encouraged to give it a look, produce your own and contribute, suggest reviews and 
      2. Use Apple’s list of purposes/uses in their privacy nutrition label: Lisa recently shared
  4. Approval of Agenda
  5. Approval of Minutes if a quorum

Month End Agenda (Rolled into the last bi-weekly call)

  1. Director's Updates
  2. Project readouts





Call to Order

Check for a quorum. (Quorum) Late

Reminder about attendance policy for voting status.

ISI Work Group IPR Policy

A reminder of IPR policy for the WG
Approval of Agenda

Moved: Kate Downing

Seconded: Jim Pasquale

Discussion on the format of the workgroup

Approval of Minutes

Moved: John Wunderlich

Seconded: Jim Pasquale

Discussion: None

Changes: None

Actions arising: Motion carried

Project Updates (Month-end Updates) (not required this meeting)

  • AdvCIS
  1. Deliverables
    1. ?
  2. Status: TO ARCHIVE
  3. Issues:
    1. split out this work into newly formed WG
  4. Next Steps:
    1. archive work product or transfer to new workgroup?
    2. define boundaries between us and this newly chartered initiative
  • Intentcasting
  1. Deliverables
    1. Report on Intentcasting
  2. Status: INACTIVE
  3. Issues:
    1. Resourcing
  4. Next Steps:
    1. Resume in Q2 or Q3 2021
  • Personal Data Use Receipt Framework
  1. Deliverables
    1. PDUR Framework
  2. Status: ACTIVE
  3. Issues:
    1. Draft report comments and review located here - Personal Data Use Receipt Framework Contribution
  4. Next Steps:
    1. solidify Draft document through a series of workshops, commencing w/o 8 Feb 2021
  • Privacy-Preserving Information Sharing
  1. Deliverables
    1. Survey Report
    2. Recommendation Report
  2. Status: INACTIVE
  3. Issues:
    1. Insufficient availability to proceed at this point
  4. Next Steps:
    1. Find a new lead to move the project forward OR
    2. Resume when available

WG Discussion

Personal Data Use Receipt Framework

Jim Pasquale Provided an overview

Continued the walk-through of the PDURF for a motion to publish

Discussion of how we might gain external input from the marketplace to obtain feedback on the data model.

Group discussion on a number of issues (If you are reading this, and would like to amend notes, please email Kate Downing).

Announcements All

Please enter your availability on the following link so that we might find a time for the workshop / work group to gain improvements on the spec:

Meeting Discussions All

Lisa / Ken - Agenda item potentially on Feb 18 2021? to hold a discussion on purpose of use consistency & data processors - best practices for DPOs. It would be good to have a clear outcome in mind:  e.g. Consent best practices and outstanding challenges (potentially).

Kenneth Klingenstein's document submitted on 12/17/20: group was generally positive, however, suggested that some of the characteristics listed might better describe a specific profile; not necessarily a framework.

We should develop a list of the understood Purposes of Use. Is the usage consistent w/ purpose of use?

Motion to consider this when we next achieve a quorum - today (21 Jan 2021).

Lisa LeVasseur notes that IEEE P7012 has noted the following purposes:

  • To Provide This Service (Me2B Deal)
  • To Subsidize the Cost of This Service
  • Marketing
  • Fraud Prevention
  • Ephemeral Personalized Experience (Analytics?)
  • Government or Regulatory Requirements

John Wunderlich privacy tuples also feed into this

Colin Wallis notes: Sept 2017 messers Lizar and Graves started.. : Draft: Guidelines for Defining Normative Purpose Categories for the Processing of Personal Information

John Wunderlich

(below please find add'l background discussion from 7, 14 Jan 2021)

Kenneth Klingenstein No new trust frameworks until a comparison of existing trust frameworks have been conducted. Privacy frameworks are likely embedded within these trust frameworks, and consent frameworks within these privacy frameworks. Consent mechanisms such as duration, collection, usage, disclosure etc. should be rationalized. Suggestion to create a comparison prior to moving forwards. High-level analysis prior to a deeper dive? Places where consent is defined TODAY (in legislation, regs, etc.)

John Wunderlich Suggestion to rephrase consent as an authority so that legal agreements and other appropriate bases for authorization are captured. Do 'you' have the authority to collect? Is this legitimate interest? If this is consent how is this determined? We are not looking to understand the legal basis, we are instead looking to scope this as an understanding of the MECHANISM for consent (purpose of use).

IAB framework is upstream of the PDURF - we instead might want to understand if this is an allowable use based upon the mechanism itself?

(e.g. publish individual's data on company newsletter – I have the data; is this purpose allowed under the basis that I hold this data?)

Mary Hodder View to see concerns with 'absolutely verifiable' identity all the time... (privacy minimization); pseudonyms are part of our reality & the need for companies/individuals to categorically & definitively identify an individual at every juncture is disturbing

New Business ProposalsHigh-level discussion and investigation of how we determine whether the data usage is consistent with the Purpose of Use. How do we derive a valid Purpose of Use?

Next meeting


*** Next call 2021-02-11 10:30 am Eastern DAYLIGHT Time


Moved: Jim Pasquale

Seconded: John Wunderlich

Motion carried

Action Items

  • Type your task here, using "@" to assign to a user and "//" to select a due date
  • Please enter your availability here: so that we might better accommodate the group's schedule
  • Jim Pasquale to lead a poll for the group to set "breakout time" to further progress the PDURF doc
  • Consider for spec / data model generation?
  • Kate Downing to merge changes & send to team for review
  • Add an upcoming working session - 11 Feb 2021 or 18 Feb 2021 - to discuss Purpose of Use & Respectful tech
  • No labels