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

Andrew Hughes andrewhughes3000 at gmail.com
Thu May 30 17:03:36 UTC 2019


Mark. There are factual errors in your email. More to come.

*Andrew Hughes *CISM CISSP
*In Turn Information Management Consulting*

o  +1 650.209.7542
m +1 250.888.9474
1249 Palmer Road, Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
AndrewHughes3000 at gmail.com
*https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a>*
*Digital Identity | International Standards | Information Security *


On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 9:46 AM Mark @ OC <mark at openconsent.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190530/c573e684/attachment.html>


More information about the WG-InfoSharing mailing list