Rights Automation Community Group - comments on draft Standard

Hi Ben - Michelle and I have been reviewing the standard this week; it's taking a while and we expect to continue providing feedback on it in the coming weeks as we get further through it, but we had some initial comments on content up to section 2.2.2

2.1.1 - Party Types

We feel that some contracts require further differentiation of party types than simply "Internal Party" and "External Party".  We see the following distinction:

Internal

*         Licensee consumers who are covered by the License entity

*         Licensee affiliates, who sometimes have lesser rights than the Licensee consumers
 External

*         Professional consumers - described as using for business purposes, which can include commercial use

*         Non-professional consumers - described as using for personal or non-commercial use

*         Public website consumer - where there are typically no distinctions between the capacities in which an individual may be using the data

All of these are defined with different obligations on the use case, permissioning and commonly contracts require that you distinguish them in constraints or duties.  We think it is relevant to have these different categories to allow differentiation on the use cases.  How could we model this?  Does it make more sense to introduce qualifiers on Party Types or to subclass the Internal Party and External Party types?  The external case could potentially be handled by using duties that apply to external parties performing particular roles (assuming we define those roles), but the internal ones do look more like distinct subclasses of internal party.

2.1.2 Party Roles

We query the definition of "Service Facilitator".  The existing definition suggests that it refers to entities that are "assisting in the delivery of data services"; we feel that there are cases where it would be more appropriate to talk about them being an external organisation contracted by a Party to use the Party's data access rights to perform a business function (which might encompass generating derived data for the Party, fitting the existing definition, but might involve other activities).

On "Administrator" you state this must be an external entity.  We may be missing the intent here; we were thinking this is the function that controls downstream access to the data assets and potentially has reporting / notification duties.  If so, we would see this as potentially either an external or an internal party.  Some duties might only apply in the case where it was an external party, but that could be accommodated by qualifying the duty by party type.

2.2.1 Resource Types
The use of "former" and "latter" is slightly confusing here; you identify three cases:

*         the original data resource created by the Originator

*         the resource "at rest" in an organisation before Rules are applied to control its use

*         the contolled(typo) resource that is received by a Consumer

Is the intended interpretation that the first two are of type "Source" and the third "Asset", or is the at rest resource something other than a Source (in which case, what is it?).  We note that there are licensing terms related to the storage of historical time series data that might require you to distinguish between the first two cases.


That's all we have come up with to date.



Nigel

________________________________
Nigel Phelan | Corporate & Investment Bank | Market Data Services | J.P. Morgan


This message is confidential and subject to terms at: https://www.jpmorgan.com/emaildisclaimer including on confidential, privileged or legal entity information, malicious content and monitoring of electronic messages. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.