[WG-InfoSharing] Fwd: WG Charter updating

James Hazard james.g.hazard at gmail.com
Thu Jun 27 20:01:07 UTC 2019


I love the name and idea of ELISA. It maps to the notion of legal terms for
data handling expressed in a Trust Fabric.

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 12:00 PM Jim Pasquale <jim at digi.me> wrote:

> I’m not opposed to the name change and would actually support (ELISA) as
> an ETLA (Extended Three Letter Acronym) as the correct term/definition
> fostering good behavior on both side of an agreement.  And now the
> definition of ELISA Explicit Layered Informed Sharing Agreement. Might I
> add very GDPR too.
>
> There my two cents on renaming
>
>
>
> On Jun 27, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Iain Henderson <iainhenderson at mac.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Jim.
>
> If looking at name change, if anything my own preference would be to
> return to the original; i.e. Information Sharing Work Group (so drop the
> consent).
>
> Since GDPR firmed up on 6 legal bases under which an organisation might
> process personal data, only once of which is consent, I think having only
> one in the name is too limiting.
>
> The original remit and stance of the group was that ‘good’ information
> sharing was a human necessity; so we were looking for ways to make good
> behaviours possible/ preferable; and not so much about discouraging bad
> behaviours. There’s a lot of subtlety in that I guess, but for example the
> work group would never have a ‘privacy dashboard’, we’d have an
> ‘information sharing dashboard’ some of which would be about good sharing,
> some about less good sharing.
>
> Anyway, i’ll try to draw something together next week as a proposal to be
> shot down or tinkered with.
>
> Iain
>
> On 27 Jun 2019, at 19:24, Jim Pasquale <jim at digi.me> wrote:
>
> In case you’ve missed Iain’s request and based on this morning WG
> discussion, please submit inputs for developing an expanded charter for the
> WG.
>
> BTW I disagree with Mark’s observation around changing consent to
> permission, if we are going to make a change in the vernacular of the
> Charter from consent and here’s why.
>
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/consent
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Iain Henderson <iainhenderson at mac.com>
> *Subject: **Re: [WG-InfoSharing] Reminder: tomorrow's call*
> *Date: *June 27, 2019 at 1:53:29 PM EDT
> *To: *Jim Pasquale <jim at digi.me>, "Mark @ OC" <mark at openconsent.com>
> *Cc: *"wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org" <
> wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org>
>
> Agreed thanks, I will try to synthesise.
>
> Any further input before I try to get something out early next week?
>
> On 27 Jun 2019, at 18:37, Jim Pasquale <jim at digi.me> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> You need to use our process and this means submitting it to Iain as he’s
> leading the effort.
>
> On Jun 27, 2019, at 1:34 PM, Mark @ OC <mark at openconsent.com> wrote:
>
> FWIW,
>
> I would like to be the first to propose that this working group consider a
> preference receipt as a chartered, roadmap activity.  From all of the
> feedback,  the technical use cases and the considerable social and
> political issues, I think something like a preference receipt would be the
> work item that might really take what many people are looking for from a
> receipt, to that next level of human to tech relationship management.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On 27 Jun 2019, at 17:55, Mark @ OC <mark at openconsent.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Lisa,
>
> What you refer to in relationships online with web services does not
> adhere to current legal, social or historical definitions of consent.  But,
> it would fall under the definitions and dynamics of permission-ing,
> authorisations and perhaps preferences in web services.
>
> In particular these 2 slides.
>
> <page5image5887392.png>
>
> Consent
>
> - reflects power asymmetry
>
> - is disempowering
> - is a binary only bargain
> <page6image7194928.png> <page6image7874304.png>
>
> “Consent by one party permits another to act in a way that might otherwise
> be
>
> illegal or immoral.” - Nancy S. Kim, Consentability, p.7
>
> On 27 Jun 2019, at 17:50, <lisa at dialplus.net> <lisa at dialplus.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re seeing here.  Can you
> please explain how the diagram misunderstands or misrepresents consent
> receipts?
>
> I’m quite clear about the usage of consent pre-technology, so I’m not
> seeing how the diagram “misunderstands”.
>
> I agree about digital identifiers.
>
> I’m keen to understand your observations re: consent.   Maybe we need a
> quick call to elucidate.
>
> Lisa
>
> *From:* Info @ OC <info at openconsent.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 27, 2019 8:51 AM
> *To:* Lisa LeVasseur <lalevasseur at ieee.org>
> *Cc:* Jim Pasquale <jim at digi.me>; wg-infosharing at kantarainitiative.org
> *Subject:* Re: [WG-InfoSharing] Reminder: tomorrow's call
>
> Hi Lisa,
>
> This presentation  sort of misunderstands the consent receipt works .. in
> addition, it sort of misunderstands that people and consent and society
> exist before and outside of technology relationships that Me2B (name)
> focuses on.
>
> Mixing these things all together with a standard and a roadmap is just a
> bit too ugh! If relationships are a focus inside software and on website
> usage, then this should be the focus. In the context of this focus a
> specific spec, or standard or relationship management advocacy would be
> well placed.
>
> But, most importantly Users Respect from Web technology is a narrow and
> limited explicit consent use case - and what the web tech providers are
> calling consent - is actually surveillance and not representative of all
> the other industries or even society.  Not in social terms, not in legal
> terms, just in their particular biz tech applied use case.
>
> Sort of apple and orange consent discussion - in fact consent is a very
> old human governance tool that is defined by human physics - and has
> developed with society and common law over a very long time to become an
> enforced law (30 + years)
>
> I would even go so far as to suggest, its the use of digital identifier
> management that doesn’t respect Me2B relationships - nothing to do with
> consent.  So perhaps adding identity relationship management to the CISWG
> would be a good way to encompass what you have in this draft.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On 27 Jun 2019, at 16:27, Lisa LeVasseur <lalevasseur at ieee.org> wrote:
>
> This is the drafty view of the evolution of consent to mutual agency, from
> a Me2B perspective.  Comments welcome.
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 8:11 AM Jim Pasquale <jim at digi.me> wrote:
>
> With many of the workgroup participants at Identiverse this week.
> Tomorrow’s call will focus on drafting an update to the new charter for
> CIS.
>
> Here are the call in details:
>
>
> *GoToMeeting (GTM1)*
> * Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. *
>
> Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
> https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/323930725
> <https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/323930725>
>
> You can also dial in using your phone.
> United States: +1 (669) 224-3318
>
> Access Code: 323-930-725
>
> More phone numbers
> Australia: +61 2 9091 7603
> Austria: +43 1 2530 22500
> Belgium: +32 28 93 7002
> Canada: +1 (647) 497-9376
> Denmark: +45 32 72 03 69
> Finland: +358 923 17 0556
> France: +33 170 950 590
> Germany: +49 692 5736 7300
> Ireland: +353 15 360 756
> Italy: +39 0 230 57 81 80
> Netherlands: +31 207 941 375
> New Zealand: +64 9 282 9510
> Norway: +47 21 93 37 37
> Spain: +34 932 75 1230
> Sweden: +46 853 527 818
> Switzerland: +41 225 4599 60
> United Kingdom: +44 330 221 0097
>
> See you on the call.
>
>
> *Disclaimer*
> The information contained in this communication from the sender is
> confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others
> authorised 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.
>
> .
> _______________________________________________
> WG-InfoSharing mailing list
> WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org
> https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing
>
> <Beyond Consent_ Evolving to Mutual Agency in Me2B
> Relationship.pdf>_______________________________________________
> WG-InfoSharing mailing list
> WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org
> https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WG-InfoSharing mailing list
> WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org
> https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WG-InfoSharing mailing list
> WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org
> https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing
>
>
>
>
> *Disclaimer*
>
> The information contained in this communication from the sender is
> confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others
> authorised 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.
>
> .
>
>
>
>
> *Disclaimer*
>
> The information contained in this communication from the sender is
> confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others
> authorised 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.
>
> .
> _______________________________________________
> WG-InfoSharing mailing list
> WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org
> https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing
>
>
>
>
>
> *Disclaimer*
>
> The information contained in this communication from the sender is
> confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others
> authorised 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.
>
> .
> _______________________________________________
> WG-InfoSharing mailing list
> WG-InfoSharing at kantarainitiative.org
> https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-infosharing
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-infosharing/attachments/20190627/d4514d84/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the WG-InfoSharing mailing list