Date and Time | Attendees | Apologies | Agenda | Minutes | Next Meeting
Participant Roster - As of 2020-02-20, the quorum is 5 of 8
(Voting participants are: Andrew Hughes Iain Henderson, Jim Pasquale, John Wunderlich, Kenneth Klingenstein, Lisa LeVasseur, Mary Hodder, Oscar Santolalla, )
|Call to Order|
Check for a quorum. (Quorum) Late
Reminder about attendance policy for voting status.
|A reminder of IPR policy for the WG|
|Approval of Agenda|
Discussion on the format of the workgroup
Approval of Minutes
Actions arising: Motion carried
Project Updates (Month-end Updates) (not required this meeting)
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).
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:
Discussion of new Kantara group formation and where the boundaries exist between this work group and our efforts in WG-ISI.
Discussion around meeting times and objectives.
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:
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
(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 https://www.thetradedesk.com 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 Proposals||High-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 call 2021-02-11 10:30 am Eastern DAYLIGHT Time