[WG-InfoSharing] Call for A Critical Assessment of the Capacity of CISWG to produce a V2 of the Consent Receipt

Mark @ OC mark at openconsent.com
Thu May 30 16:45:11 UTC 2019


Dear CISWG, 

After the last call, I have some critical concerns about the ability of the  V.2 work to be progressed in the current proposal.  There definitely should not be this much friction in process and admin. 

The proposal for the V2, is not a transparent approach, agreed by consensus, and what is extremely alarming is the proposition of  a  re-start to requirement gathering from the identity industry, to produce a specification in 3 months.  

The existing consent receipt specification was developed with 5 years of requirement gathering (over 10 versions of separate requirements for each version and use cases ) in consultation with standards bodies, industry trade associations and regulators.  This took a heck of a lot of work and has resulted in a legal tech specification for using consent with notice transparency that has been adopted by global standards efforts and entire industries. (US Health) To the point in which ISO has offered to initiate a study period which would be driven by this work group. 

For leadership, to not be aware or understand this scope, while also proposing to lead the work group product, is a massive red flag .  

A WG chair, to not know of the history of this extraordinary effort called the consent receipt, and to want to reframe this entire work from a identity implementation perspective is not only alarming but would not work. As this would be a different specification and not be CR V2 

In addition, I personally have a complaint that the behaviour continuously exhibited in calls by the convening chairs is not acceptable.  In particularly, not letting other people speak, not being transparent, and effectively (or continuously man-splaining) is not acceptable from a WG chair in any organisations - especially for work of such  import.

It is very clear that this proposal to V2 doesn’t consider the legal scope of work, which makes this a real legal framework (regulation usable) in consent standard for legal compliance.  

I would like to respectfully ask Kantara Leadership  Colin and Jim (of course) to review this behaviour, as well as all of you in this work group, and perhaps in the mean time, respectfully request that  Jim  (the Chair) take over the reigns of leadership in CISWG. .

With respect to CISWG,  I invite everyone to provide an opinion on this matter, who has an investment in the V2 work. 

Kind Regards,

Mark

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3862 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-infosharing/attachments/20190530/46aa60a4/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the WG-InfoSharing mailing list