W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dpvcg@w3.org > March 2019

dpvcg-ACTION-68: consent elements

From: <Mark@OC-2>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 05:45:26 +0000
Message-Id: <8CC2E2D5-0F48-4D46-934D-91953E8316AA@openconsent.com>
Cc: Bud Bruegger <uld613@datenschutzzentrum.de>, "Harshvardhan J. Pandit" <harshvardhan.pandit@adaptcentre.ie>
To: public-dpvcg <public-dpvcg@w3.org>
HI DPVC (and Rigo),  

We have produced a set of consent elements, and have them attached here in a document that needs a bit of introduction/guidance before reading.   A part of this task has been working though process and I bring the additional goal of interoperability, which we defer as a topic for the future. 

As a result, Harsh, Bud and I have worked on a little bit of  guidance as well as suggestions for moving discussion and review forward. This is as follows;


1. First, the document attached can be confusing if we do not explain that this document uses another specification that provides a base set of consent fields (minimum consent receipt) that are common to most/all jurisdictions. As a result, a  part of the document attached is not relevant for review.  For this reason -  we have highlighted the sections that are not required to be reviewed by the CG at this time.  

2. The minimum  consent receipt specification was generated in an identity management (IdM)  community, this is important because IdM is a required component to consent and its management. This is why in this GDPR specification we have focused on being very clear about the identities of the parties involved in the recorded consent interaction and the delegation of consent to another party.  

3. The minimum spec, has place/fields for Vocabulary Categories being worked on in DPVC, this means we can use this format to test the vocabulary, appended to the spec is a schema example 

Suggestions to progress this work: 

-  We Suggest - progressing this work using GitHub - putting only the relevant fields in the GitHub wiki, and then to track issues or questions about consent elements using Github - where we can all discuss a single issue in a single thread, related to a single consent element. (Note: we already have a couple of issues to add - once we get going, and perhaps this would make a review easier )
- add a task, once review has happened, for feeding back to the Kantara WG, and to include the difference between definitions and taxonomy of GDPR consent elements and minimum viable specification - with the view that Kantara WG would update the specification. 

Best Regards, 

Mark, Bud & Harsh

Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2019 05:47:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:27:56 UTC