[WG-InfoSharing] Consent and Information Sharing Work Group Charter Update

Iain Henderson iainhenderson at mac.com
Mon Jun 17 17:30:50 UTC 2019

Hi Lisa, the existing consent receipt and any derivation thereof already has at least a semblance of ‘use receipt’ built in. That’s because pretty much all privacy regulation worldwide mandates that the entity gathering the data articulates ‘what data are they gathering’ (data type), and ‘what are the doing with it’ (purposes). So both of those concepts are already fields within the existing receipt - albeit we have never standardised either of those lists (which I think is do-able, but a tough ask in a work group with limited bandwidth).


> On 17 Jun 2019, at 18:05, Lisa LeVasseur <lalevasseur at ieee.org> wrote:
> Hi Iain,
> Just occurred to me:  has there been any discussion around "Use Receipts" for Service Providers in the history of this working group?
> Lisa
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 3:23 AM Iain Henderson <iainhenderson at mac.com <mailto:iainhenderson at mac.com>> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Last week I agreed to take on and lead the task of updating the work group charter, which was last re-visited in 2016 (https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/infosharing/Charter+2016 <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/infosharing/Charter+2016> ).
> To do so I would like to take onboard as many views from the work group as possible, and synthesise those into a draft which we can then iterate on and ultimately accept as our updated direction.
> Our main focus in the last few years has been the consent receipt, and we have made decent progress with that. But the world of personal data management is fast moving and dynamic, so i’m particularly keen to represent views on where we should be going next with that specification (v 1.1 and v 2 are both in scope at present; v 2 is being discussed as a more generalised personal data receipt and not solely about consent). I’m also keen to hear of adjacent projects; for example, the group has previously worked on ‘information sharing agreements’, and ‘standard information sharing labels’; in both cases we made progress but lacked technical delivery methods - that may or may not have changed now.
> In any case, please email me either on list or off list (iainhenderson at mac.com <mailto:iainhenderson at mac.com>) with your thoughts on our direction and I will synthesise those various inputs and play back. I’d like to have a first cut of that for beginning of July, so please get your thoughts over to me in the next week or so.
> Thanks
> Iain
> _______________________________________________
> WG-InfoSharing mailing list
> WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org <mailto:WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org>
> https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing <https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-infosharing/attachments/20190617/9c5affa6/attachment.html>

More information about the WG-InfoSharing mailing list