Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Date

2017-04-13

Status of Minutes

DRAFT

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

Attendees

Voting

 

Non-Voting

  • Robert Lapes 
  • David Turner

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
Andrew Hughes 
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
Andrew Hughes
  • LC has certified the draft as meeting the requirements stated in the Bylaws and Operating Procedures
  • Staff is preparing to send to All Member ballot
  • It may be prudent to contact your own networks to encourage them to vote - I can disclose Kantara member names directly with each individually (not email addresses - so you have to know that part yourself)

  •  
10 min
  • Recap the Discussion of approach
All
  • FROM 2017-03-23 MEETING NOTES:
  • - discuss approach and schedule for next round of specification enhancements
    - a contributions period
    - a period of consolidation and combination of the contributions
    - a period of WG Editor work
    - Public review etc
    - confirmation of change request tracking tool (GitHub Issues unless strong objection)


Harri

  •  Their 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)
  • e.g. Consents have to be better atomized - so that over time, is there an accumulation of receipts? or accumulation of consents?
    • The implementation detail might be: is there a concept of dynamic evaluation of consented purposes? Or is it static at transaction time? e.g. if a purpose or consent is changed at a later date, are the original receipts canceled and re-issued? is the original updated? is there a 'diff' receipt that only covers the different scope?
  • 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
  • Andrew to try to get the comments from the public review into github
40 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
 5 minUpdate on Comments to ICO Consent DraftsMark
  • Mark received some contributions and submitted the package - receipt was acknowledged