[WG-InfoSharing] Meeting Notes - MVCR - 4 issues created

Mark Lizar - OCG m.lizar at openconsentgroup.com
Tue Mar 1 11:17:59 CST 2016


Regarding Issue #20 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/CISWG/issues/20> 
Adding Consent type as a  field to the header section. 

Can this issue be solved by - instead of having the implied/explicit consent type - can we have an explicit consent (y/n) flag in the specification  - which is the current method (i..e sensitive data y/n)

1. Explicit meaning there are checkboxes that had to be clicked (or not) in the receipt in addition to the button. - which then is required to be recorded on the receipt.=.  (AKA a consent tag/label)  

2. Implicit meaning that this is a reduced consent, or consent with assumptions?  Assumptions that are not explained in the receipt. 
  


> On 1 Mar 2016, at 16:56, Mark Lizar - OCG <m.lizar at openconsentgroup.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi CISWG,
> 
>  here are the notes from the meeting minutes..  <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=78447557> Added after the call.  (not minutes) 
> 
> I have added some action items below over the week. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Mark 
> 
> 
> ***Approve Agenda
> 
> (Note: If someone is speaking or presenting an item they should not typically be chair, so we'll need to appoint a chair while Mark presents. The chair can act as the timekeeper as well.)
> 
> Read In Minutes for Approval
> 
> Feb, 1,8, 22, (need Reading in)]
> 
> John Motion for the minutes to be approved, Iain seconds, no objections.
> 
> We  started discussion about field labels in the row and column of the header.
> 
> First order of business
> 
> Mark moved intro: what is a consent receipt, inter-operable and legal to the issues #17, 18, 19 (saying that issue 17 - intro  defining what the MVCR is for, is critical)
> we reviewed the index and then started on the fields - John had a suggest field that Mark did not understand
> Iain introduced powerpoint on column and row suggestions 
>  Iain suggested that we add the explanation in the table for what information is rendered to the receipt.
>  created issue: 
> Issue #21 of adding one field  to the MVCR came up as a mush. "Consent Type" for the addition of implicit and explicit field.
> We had a good discussion about explicit and implicit consent and if this should be a binary consent choice where explicit is defined by a checkbox with the words "I consent to X"  next to it.    (which is a contract  (tort law) implementation of the contract to consent. See table explicit vs implicit https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/CISWG/files/151964/Implied.vs.Expressed.pdf <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/CISWG/files/151964/Implied.vs.Expressed.pdf>
> Mark proposes that privacy law and principle all have the common same requirements or explicit consent.  And that the provision of a consent receipt itself with valid contact details is equivalent to partially compliant consent. for consent across all jurisdictions. Is this equivalent to implied consent?    (brings up questions in the issue on github like: does implied consent also mean Express consent? if so does it require sensitive data fields? does it require the  sharing and purpose fields to be  optional fields in the v0.8 spec ? )
> perhaps an implied consent receipt should be defined as the MVCR ?
> (Editors Note: Does this introduce the concept of the Consent Label - i.e.  explicit - check-box style agreement to privacy conditions? )   Does this introduce the idea of implicit being expressed (i consent response in some manner) ? I.e. - the sharing and control of the data is assumed to be the operator and it assumed that the operator is trusted.
> 
> This depends oh what exactly constitutes the definition of explicit and implied consent for the MVCR.   (critical question for the MVCR)
> is the receipt passive - in that if it is received and it is valid it achieves the MVCR explicit consent definition?
> or does the receipt have to be active - in that if it is received and if the user clicks consent in the form,  the consent is receipt valid for explicit consent?
> Action Items
> 
> Action: Mark Lizar <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/%7Esmarthart> create issue in GithUb and send topic to list
> 
> Action: Iain Henderson <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/%7Eihenderson> short note on suggested columns to the list - i.e. descrption of rendered field in receipt
> 
> action: Iain Henderson <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/%7Eihenderson> short note on removing field *which field and why?
> 
> Action: Iain Henderson <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/%7Eihenderson> implementation feed back - please provide short summary of field descriptions
> 
> Action: Mark Lizar <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/%7Esmarthart> put field changes to the list prior to call next week if there are any.
> 
> Action John Wunderlich <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/%7Ejwunderlich> and Mark Lizar <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/%7Esmarthart> chat to review fields before next meeting
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WG-InfoSharing mailing list
> WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-infosharing/attachments/20160301/4fe98726/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3591 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-infosharing/attachments/20160301/4fe98726/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the WG-InfoSharing mailing list