[KI-LC] ANCR WG Charter

Salvatore DAgostino sal at idmachines.com
Mon Jan 18 14:20:38 UTC 2021

Thanks Ken,


I will go through it and provide an update later today.


Yes, the language is changing here and we need to be very clear as that is directly to the point of the work, thanks for your reading.


The data and human vocabularies are part of the challenge. As we said, part of the problem is that a consent receipt conflated notice, consent, legal basis and other things.  


Thanks again,




From: Ken Dagg <kendaggtbs at gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 9:11 AM
To: jim kragh <kragh65 at gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Hughes (andrewhughes3000 at gmail.com) <andrewhughes3000 at gmail.com>; Colin Wallis <colin at kantarainitiative.org>; Eve Maler <eve at xmlgrrl.com>; Kantara Leadership Council <lc at kantarainitiative.org>; Mark Lizar <mark at openconsent.com>; Salvatore DAgostino <sal at idmachines.com>; Thomas Sullivan <tsullivan at drfirst.com>; jim pasquale <jimpasquale at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ANCR WG Charter




I read the charter on Friday and thought about my comments over the weekend.


I’m not familiar with the Consent Receipt work. That being said, from my uneducated perspective, I have the following comments:


1) I find the charter unclear in several places in terms of wording.  For example, in section 3 Scope:

a) paragraph 1. a. says, “Update the initial consent receipt by specifying ...”.  IMO, it should say, “ Update the initial consent receipt specification by specifying ...”. There are other cases of inconsistent wording. I would suggest giving the charter an overall read to ensure clarity.

b) paragraph 1. b. say to the “Extend the consent notice receipt schema base”. I have no idea what a “consent notice receipt” is let alone it’s “scheme base”.  I could not find the term in V1.1.

c) paragraph 1. c. says “Address technical gaps”. My question is: technical gaps in what?


2) In section 4 Draft Technical Specifications I’m not sure what what is being developed especially how the first and second bullet relate to each other. From what is said, I think that there is some overlap between the two bullets.


3) IMO, section 7 Audience is still unclear and doesn’t describe what they will get out of it or how they will use it.


4) IMO, section 8 Duration describes another output from the Group: the roadmap for future work.


As I said at the beginning, I thought about whether I should send these comments and finally decide to in order to ensure that the charter clearly describes what the group intends to do.







On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 8:53 AM jim kragh <kragh65 at gmail.com <mailto:kragh65 at gmail.com> > wrote:

Good morning to all! 


Sal, I sent my approval in last Friday and encourage my colleagues to do the same today. I found one typo in the document which I brought to Sal's attention and it was being corrected.


Have a good day!


Jim Kragh





On Mon, Jan 18, 2021, 8:30 AM Salvatore DAgostino <sal at idmachines.com <mailto:sal at idmachines.com> > wrote:

Happy MLK Day!

Can you please take the quick action to approve the WG, (we discussed this
in the leads call and it has been through multiple update based on
comments)so that we can put out an e-ballot tomorrow?



1264 Beacon Street, #5 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1264+Beacon+Street,+%235+%0D%0ABrookline,+MA%C2%A0+02446?entry=gmail&source=g> 
Brookline, MA <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1264+Beacon+Street,+%235+%0D%0ABrookline,+MA%C2%A0+02446?entry=gmail&source=g>   02446
+1 617.201.4809

Please note I have a new email certificate, please update the public key you
use for encrypted messages to me.  It is part of this (S/MIME) email.

The information contained in this communication from the sender is
confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others
authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in
relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may
be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and
advise the sender.


Kenneth Dagg Independent Consultant Identification and Authentication 613-825-2091 kendaggtbs at gmail.com <mailto:kendaggtbs at gmail.com> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20210118/4a37beaf/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5455 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20210118/4a37beaf/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the LC mailing list