So for me transparency provides a means of measuring the RoPA, transparency as a requirement of a RoPA, whereas today they exists without a record for the performance.
Given the term RoPA has legal heft why would be modify it, imo we should leverage, define, enhance the requirement.
From: SP AMINA <Sharon.Polsky@AMINAcorp.ca>
Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2023 8:18 AM
To: Mark Lizar <mark@transparencylab.ca>
Cc: Salvatore D'Agostino <sal@idmachines.com>; wg-ancr@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [WG-ANCR] csf comments
“ROT - Pa” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. And starting the acronym with “ROT” doesn’t present positive connotations.
Grammatically, it’s also is backward and therefore unintuitive — like a “privacy impact assessment” is backward. The title actually means that it’s an assessment of the impact that privacy has, which is the exact opposite of what it is and ought to be — an assessment of the impact upon privacy that something might have.
How about Processing Activity Record of Transparency — PART— or Privacy Processing Activity Record of Transparency — PPART.
my 2c
On Nov 5, 2023, at 5:27 AM, Mark Lizar <mark@transparencylab.ca> wrote:
. Perhaps we should refer to this as a Digital Privacy Record of Transparent Processing Activity (RoTPA) ?