Child pages
  • Weekly Meeting 2011 04 26 Notes Ratified
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 6 Next »

Information Sharing GROUP Teleconference

Date and Time

  • Date: Tuesday, 26 April 2011
  • Time: 9am HST | noon PST | 3pm EST | 8pm UK
  • Please join my meeting via GoToMeeting
  • Join the conference call:
    • Skype: +9900827042954214
    • US Dial-In: +1-201-793-9022
    • UK Dial-In: +44 (0) 8454018081
    • Room Code: 2954214
    • GoToMeeting ID: 844-771-298


  • Joe Andrieu
  • Iain Henderson
  • Judi Clark


  • none


  1. Attendance
  2. Approval of Prior Minutes
  3. Prior Action Item Review
  4. New Business
  5. Standard Information Sharing Agreements
  6. Action Item Review


1. Attendance

We noted that 3 people on the call were voting members and that the group did not meet quorum on this call.

2. Motions


3. Prior Action Item Review
  • Joe - follow up with Mary Ruddy re: ID Commons charter - will talk on Thursday Apr 28
  • Iain - get updated .doc to lawyers in UK, cc mailing list - met with them today, lawyers will get something together for our Sunday meeting. Will share a more formal proposal/draft to lawyers following today's call.
  • Judi - arrange call with ISWG and Scott David (45 mins) - done, call held. Natural place for trust framework is like OSI (Open Source Initiative). Of note: which piece will be controlled by whom? Multiple conversations needed.
4. New Business
5. Information Sharing Agreements

Example of patterns in our work: Personal RFP:

  A) making this info available for response, no further use, reference to FAQ.

  B) May also use this info to analyze effectiveness of your marketing and sales campaigns--as it's related to purpose (in this case the personal RFP). (Not same as product improvement.) Example: google being a better google: storing the data for another occasion.

The difference is that one allows a particular activity, AND it's impact/permission to use in future transactions.

Joe would like to see 6-12 patterns.

Some concerns that need to be included in discussion: Negative patterns, like Capture for hidden use. Inappropriate use that causes harm. Alcove as a pattern: balances need for public and private spaces, social dynamics: enter the room and don't interact with others in the room, it's a snub. Alcove allows private yet connected space. Christopher Alexander and conflicts: negative situations have more dynamics than positive lists. Observed patterns, abstractions that you can use to generate solutions.

From Iain:

1) Capture for hidden use

  • fraud
  • direct marketing
  • data sharing (free)
  • data sharing (for money)
  • re-mixing
  • aggregation


  • behavioural tracking
  • location analysis

Characterised by:

  • confusing or hidden ToUse
  • high level purpose descriptions

2) Over-capture for proposed use

  • analysis

3) Capture for unknown future use
4) Capture driven by regulation
5) Capture because it is easier than not capturing
6) Holding longer than needs be
7) Holding in formats that could be bettered
8) Making accessible too broadly
9) Making accessible without masking
10) Gathering without governance
11) Gathering without maintenance plan

Iain noted that when the lawyers refer to FAQs, they're expecting a small level of detail of the actual contract. They're referring to a binding agreement.

From our conversation with Scott: two different perspectives in law (and regulation) correspond to data on the move and data at rest. Different question about how they (who?) are allowed to reach you. Iain's 11 stages are a lens through which we can find those patterns. Some patterns might appear in multiple stages, may be generalized into one pattern that's re-used. This is an aspiration. We're not there yet. (Analytical CRM (plans, strategies, a 3-5 yr plan) and Operational CRM (marketing, selling, service, maybe billing, a 3-5 minute plan))

FAQ: Purpose, duration, responsibilities and liabilities (from our working draft of Car Buying Engagement Model). From Work Group Report: data scope (aligned with current appendix in Iain's doc), data use (real-time service provision, like a keyword for search results), communications (can put it on web page for me--once). The latter pattern is same as It's understood that the web page may pre-fill form data that has different rights associated with it.

Compare Sally scenario with Google Alerts: search terms & source, send me an email (instant, daily, weekly) or add to my feed. Scope: keywords, typed in to box (as I type), to return search results on a web page.

We don't include data access, should be in scope: what data (file, photos, etc), how (facebook connect, via email or upload), and when (now, later/subscription). Look for Joe's email to group on the triumvirate.

6. Action Items Review
  • Judi - will send agenda to list ahead of our call (ongoing)
  • Joe - follow up with Mary Ruddy re: ID Commons charter
  • Joe - send triumvirate scope email to mailing list
  • Iain - update from lawyers in UK, cc mailing list

Next F2F WG Meeting (Pre-IIW)

Sunday 1 May 2011
9:00am - 5pm PDT
in San Francisco, CA
(email Judi or Joe if you need details)

Next Regular Meeting

TUESDAY 10 May 2011 - 90 minutes
9am Hawaii, noon Pacific Daylight, 3pm EDT, 8pm UK Daylight
Skype: +9900827042954214
US Dial-In: +1-201-793-9022
UK Dial-In: +44 (0) 8454018081
Room Code: 2954214

NOTE: Do not follow the code with a "#" symbol as it may cause the code not to be recognized.

  • No labels