Credweb Landscape Questionnaire

Hello. I hope this finds everyone safe and well.

After reviewing the Credweb Landscape Questionnaire, I have some comments
and suggestions below.

Please note that I am late to the discussion, and I realize you may have
discussed these questions at length. I don't mean to reopen a dialogue.

Section 2:

"Is it backed by a larger organization, describe that here, along with the
nature of the relationship."

Comment: It may not be a larger organization. Perhaps "Is the initiative
backed, suggested, or required by another organization or government
entity? If so, what is your relationship with that organization?

Section 3

Comment: This may be a section to declare an industry classification or ask
the evaluator what is the primary use case for the initiative.

"How central is fighting misinformation to this mission?"

Comment: If there is a change in the language of the tool, perhaps also
change "misinformation" here to meet the new terminology.

On Geography. Specify the geographic area(s) by region? For example,
Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe, Middle East/Africa, and leave it open to
select more than one.

"What is the relationship between assessor and assessed mostly like?

Comments: Question goes to defining the relationship and some answers focus
on length of relationship. The responder may not know the definition of an
"arms-length" relationship.

Add these answer choices:

Unrelated parties
Contractual parties
Standard bearer - member/participant/user
Government entity/regulator - regulated

Remove these answer choices:

Long-term arrangement

Add the length question: "What is the length of the relationship?"


Section 7: Accountability

"What is being disclosed publicly?

Add "URL" as an answer for a published disclosure.

"Is there any type of oversight?"

Comment: spellcheck stakeholder. Add government/regulatory.

Section 8 Values

I think that Bob's questions "What do you do?" and "Why do you do it?" are
additive, perhaps in the Intervention section. The Values sections should
remain, however, the section should refocus on what values were considered
in developing the initiative, not whether the initiative is compatible with
the US Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, privacy
regulations, etc.

Use the values not the references to specific provisions. For example,
freedom of opinion, expression, speech and freedom from discrimination on
the basis of race, sex, nationality, religion, age.

Regarding privacy, the form could detail individual rights using the
language in the GDPR and/or OECD guidelines.

Best regards,


Sean La Roque-Doherty
Secretariat, IEEE P7011 Working Group
+1 (347) 620-4450
Skype: Sean.Laroque.Doherty

Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2022 20:04:58 UTC