- WG-UMA - mailman.kantarainitiative.org

Named permission objects
by James Phillpotts 24 Jul '17

24 Jul '17

Hi all, Eve sent me an email off-list last night asking "Are we going to be sorry we don't have a named object for a single permission?" With clarification this morning, it turns out she was talking about the token introspection endpoint :) You'll remember the response currently looks like: { "active":true, "exp":1256953732, "iat":1256912345, "permissions":[ { "resource_id":"112210f47de98100", "resource_scopes":[ "view", "http://photoz.example.com/dev/actions/print" ], "exp":1256953732 } ] } With a bit more discussion, the only thing I could see as potentially useful was to have permissions as an object (instead of array), and use the resource_id as the key in the object. To do this, we'd have to then make its value an array so that if you have multiple different scopes with different expiry times, they could be expressed effectively, so: { "active":true, "exp":1256953732, "iat":1256912345, "permissions":{ "112210f47de98100":[ { "resource_scopes":[ "view", "http://photoz.example.com/dev/actions/print" ], "exp":1256953732 }, { "resource_scopes":[ "edit" ], "exp":1256953750 } ] } } I'm by no means convinced that this is very much more useful than the current version, and is thoroughly backwards-incompatible, but the object structure could be useful if RPT permission arrays were to get very big. Thoughts? Cheers James

2 1

UMA2 logo proposal (please do not use!)
by Eve Maler 21 Jul '17

21 Jul '17

Here is Domenico's proposal. Let's not use any proposals/drafts till we settle on something. *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl Preview attachment UMA_logoV2b.pngUMA_logoV2b.png365 KB <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=1004c2bba3&view=att&th=15c784379e…>Preview attachment UMA_logoV2_explained.pngUMA_logoV2_explained.png495 KB <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=1004c2bba3&view=att&th=15c784379e…>

7 20

Notes from UMA Legal telecon 2017-07-21
by Eve Maler 21 Jul '17

21 Jul '17

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+legal+subgroup+note… 2017-07-21 Attending: Eve, Kathleen, Tim We started looking at chart 6 (not sent in email). Tim would like to ensure that we get the pairwise (or more) relationships, legal devices, and artifacts locked down so that he can revise the definitions. The column mentioning "pairwise" should probably take that word out because some of the artifacts definitely represent more than two of the roles. A *license*, versus a *contract* specifically, gives flexibility around number of parties and promises. It's about tracking permissions. Some permissions are given with some conditions. The license gets revoked if the conditions aren't kept. A license scales better than a contract as a legal mechanism. (Kathleen refers to the licensing model as essentially an authorization model.) A DURSA (data use reciprocal service agreement), from healthcare, is an example of a surrounding contract that could be used to encompass the kind of license we're talking about. Many of the use cases we've collected – a nanny collecting kids from daycare, giving someone access to a connected car – show that there's a desire to ensure a contractual apportionment of liability across to a requesting party in addition to licensing. If this were a contract, the RO Alice would be the offeror, the resource access permissions would be the consideration, and the RqP Bob would theoretically be the offeree – but where is the acceptance part? In the technical layer of UMA, Bob might not have acted positively at all to get access. His client software might have "pushed" claims about him without any action on his part, Alice's AS might issue a PCT to his client that represents claims previously collected and the client subsequently "pushes" that PCT back, but that happens silently. Does that constitute acceptance? Do we have to build that into our model clauses? Using a licensing model, RqP Bob *doesn't* have to accept, and any overarching contract layers could build that in only if they want to. Developing contractual-level tools is out of scope for us. The term "access contract" came from UCITA law. Do we want to use it? It appears in the role definitions, but should we step back from it? Actually, this is between the RO and ASO. So it appears on the wrong line; it should be on the RS-ASO line, not RO-RSO. Or was it correct after all? Are the RSO and ASO both parties to the access contract? The RO becomes *the* licensor, and do the ASO and RSO both become the sub-licensors? It would be helpful, in the "Legal Relationship" column, to always state "*so-and-so* is the *role* for *whom-downstream* of *what* on behalf of *whom-upstream*". E.g., "RSO is sub-licensor on behalf of RO". Maybe we can even construct the columns so that each variable gets filled in, in order, to form a "sentence"? The RO is at the "head" of the relationships. The RO owns the access rights. (In US healthcare, under federal law, a patient owns right of access.) The ASO-CO artifact of OAuth client credentials is only related to that pairwise relationship (not to RqP BoB or to the PCT; this should be relegated to a separate row). It could be related to a contract, say, ToS. It's a *potential place* where conditions that are protective of Alice *could* go, e.g. to ensure that the client (later interacting with Bob, e.g. sharing Alice's data, storing Alice's data, etc.) acts in a way that is aligned with Alice's interests. At the end of the day, the legal aspects have to match the UMA flows and artifacts exactly. *AI:* Eve: Try to do an edited matrix in GSlides form for the group. *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Reminder: Legal telecon tomorrow
by Eve Maler 20 Jul '17

20 Jul '17

8am PT/11am ET http://join.me/findthomas We'll have fresh role definitions, mappings, and diagrams. Good times! *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Draft minutes of UMA telecon 2017-07-20
by Eve Maler 20 Jul '17

20 Jul '17

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2017-07-20 MinutesRoll call Quorum was reached. Approve minutes Approve minutes of UMA telecon 2017-06-29 <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2017-06-29> and UMA telecon 2017-07-13 <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2017-07-13>: APPROVED by unanimous consent. UMA 2.0 work Is the right distinction in the Disposition of Comments document <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+V2.0+Disposition+of…> "Would the change potentially cause anyone to raise a new IPR issue or not?", rather than "Is it 'editorial' or 'technical'?" So if something goes from, say, MUST to something weaker (SHOULD or MAY), that would (could?) raise IPR issues. But just clarifying something that was unclear in the Draft Recommendation would presumably be editorial. Andrew asks: If no one makes a necessary claim, does it matter? "The tree has already fallen in the forest." [image: (smile)] The WG will make its case in the comment log where anything seems marginal. Finalizing the specs Sample motion when the time comes: "Approve UMA 2.0 Grant and FedAuthz revs 06 as amended by the instructions of UMA telecon 2017-xx-xx as Draft Recommendations and forward them to the Kantara Leadership Council to request certification for an All-Member Ballot as Recommendations." #332 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/332>: If the AS is "basically" expiring a previous PCT when it goes to a new authorization process, should we say it MUST? It's more like any previous PCT from a previous assessment has be superseded/overcome by events (namely, "one process/one ticket lifecycle"). How explicit do we need to be about this, for implementers to understand this clearly? We're inclined not to add more refresh token-like text, despite the suggestion, because it's a little too prescriptive, and we agree with the commenter's interpretation that *"I would say, that according to the current version, the AS can really choose, whether to expire PCT when issuing a fresh one and the client is not forced to discard the old one."* Using this behavior, the AS and client would each simply have old PCTs from previous authorization processes and could issue/use them for any future authorization processes they want. The wording throughout Grant doesn't prevent this; we checked. Do we now need to consider *clarifying* that this "multiplicity" of uses is okay? Is it ambiguous the way things stand? That is, Eve's reading, in the issue, of "basically" expiring is not required. Justin, James, and Mike (Yuriy) all interpret the current text to be okay with more than one-time use. Optimization of future experience is basically the rationale for PCTs, so this makes sense. Andi brings up the security and privacy considerations; we do cover these, and revocation is also covered, so we're good there. And the AS can always expire at will. No change in the wording. #337 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/337>: - exp/iat/nbf: There was an original reason for the "split" logic of talking about what happens when exp is absent vs the others. "If the parameter is absent, the permission does not expire." We tried to mean that the permission could live on past the token lifetime, but this is nonsense. [image: (smile)] What if we delete this sentence, keep the three other sentences allowing the token-level value(s) to take precedence (or refactor that sentence out to the token level), and live with the fact that we don't say anything about the absence of the OPTIONAL values? What is our intent about implementers' behavior? The RS's behavior is about cache control. The AS is likely not to hand back something already expired. Everything beyond active=true is a hint. So the RS could just try again if it didn't get what it wanted. - Did a quick tour through the other items. Most should be easy for disposition. UMA logo ideas AI: Eve: Email out Domenico's first logo idea. Let's send thoughts his way. Attendees As of 7 Mar 2017, quorum is 4 of 7. (Domenico, Sal, Andi, Maciej, Eve, Mike, Cigdem) 1. Domenico 2. Sal 3. Andi 4. Maciej 5. Eve 6. Mike Non-voting participants: - James - Justin - Andrew *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Notes from UMA telecon 2017-07-13
by Eve Maler 19 Jul '17

19 Jul '17

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2017-07-13 MinutesRoll call Quorum was not reached. Approve minutes Approve minutes of UMA telecon 2017-06-29 <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2017-06-29>: Deferred. UMA 2.0 work *#328 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/328>:* how client-contributed scopes are mapped to resources during authorization assessment: Eve's first iteration was "Treat each scope in ( *ClientRequested* ∩ *ClientRegistered*) as applying to all matching resource-bound scopes in *PermissionTicket*." She's thinking that it would be more accurate to say something like "...all scopes associated with resources appearing in *PermissionTicket*", and then we could add ", with the scope matching performed as described in Section 6.2.1 of [RFC3986] (Simple String Comparison)." Let's give this wording a try in context (published draft) and see if it makes sense there. #334 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/334>: the IANA registration request for the JWT permissions claim and its constituent parts: Justin suggests that we need to have a paragraph talking about the security and privacy considerations of putting this information into the token vs. an introspection response, because the token is exposed to the client. The permissions claim and its sub-claims give tools directly usable by those who want to use the "local validation of self-contained tokens" path. Furthermore, the sentence in the Introduction is too modest: "Further*, with the use of token introspection,* authorization grants can increase and decrease at the level of individual resources and scopes." We can get rid of the italicized stuff. We have the following options: 1. Remove our registration request. 2. Specify how to "validate a self-contained token locally" in a separate document, with security and privacy considerations. Do we have enough real-world implementation experience to know what the considerations are? What is the sensitive information in the token? In a typical OAuth access token, there are typically scopes. In our permissions structure, there are resource IDs, scopes, expirations, etc. Also, there may be permissions that cross RS's. Is this sensitive wrt an individual RS too? Maybe it's trivial for an RPT that doesn't cross RS's, but not otherwise. Maybe it requires encryption per array object or something. Any considerations section would have to explicitly push responsibility onto the implementer. Eve speaks in favor of option 2. Kathleen notes that it's good to keep solving this properly on the roadmap. Sal agrees. James agrees. We have consensus. Editorial actions: Remove the IANA request for JWT claims, and edit the Intro sentence. Finalizing the specs Sample motion when the time comes: "Approve UMA 2.0 Grant and FedAuthz revs 06 as amended by the instructions of UMA telecon 2017-xx-xx as Draft Recommendations and forward them to the Kantara Leadership Council to request certification for an All-Member Ballot as Recommendations." UMA logo ideas tbs Attendees As of 7 Mar 2017, quorum is 4 of 7. (Domenico, Sal, Andi, Maciej, Eve, Mike, Cigdem) 1. Sal 2. Maciej 3. Eve Non-voting participants: - Justin - Kathleen - Bjorn - Scott F - John W - Jin - James - Robert Regrets: - Domenico *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 1

Agenda for UMA telecon 2017-07-20
by Eve Maler 19 Jul '17

19 Jul '17

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2017-07-20 Date and Time - *Thursdays, 9-10am PT* - Screenshare and dial-in: http://join.me/findthomas - UMA calendar: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Calendar Agenda - Roll call - Approve minutes of UMA telecon 2017-06-29 <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2017-06-29> and UMA telecon 2017-07-13 <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2017-07-13> - UMA V2.0 work: - All GitHub issues for V2.0 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+l…> /Grant swimlane <https://www.websequencediagrams.com/files/render?link=GDUuGPibcbXrR5uWBSQP> , FedAuthz swimlane <https://www.websequencediagrams.com/files/render?link=tGft5o5ErGvUWj4X3o-O> /Release Notes <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+Release+Notes> /UIG <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+Implementer%27s+Gui…> /Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-Managed_Access> - Discuss proposed items from #337 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/337> (forthcoming) - Discuss any proposed wording from #332 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/332> (forthcoming) - Review in-progress Disposition of Comments document (forthcoming) - Finalizing the specs - When will we be ready to vote on progressing specs to the LC and then to All-Member Ballot? - UMA2 logo ideas - AOB *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Agenda for UMA telecon 2017-07-13
by Eve Maler 12 Jul '17

12 Jul '17

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2017-07-13 Date and Time - *Thursdays, 9-10am PT* - Screenshare and dial-in: http://join.me/findthomas - UMA calendar: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Calendar Agenda - Roll call - Approve minutes of UMA telecon 2017-06-29 <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2017-06-29> - Public Comment/IPR Review period concluded on July 12 at 11:59 UTC - UMA V2.0 work: - All GitHub issues for V2.0 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+l…> /Grant swimlane <https://www.websequencediagrams.com/files/render?link=GDUuGPibcbXrR5uWBSQP> , FedAuthz swimlane <https://www.websequencediagrams.com/files/render?link=tGft5o5ErGvUWj4X3o-O> /Release Notes <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+Release+Notes> /UIG <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+Implementer%27s+Gui…> /Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-Managed_Access> - Issues #326-#330 have been implemented - Please check out draft solution <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/commit/1abd77b46e29fdd0d3e0b606…> for #328 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/328>: how client-contributed scopes are mapped to resources during authorization assessment - Let's briefly discuss #334 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/334>: the IANA registration request for the JWT permissions claim and its constituent parts - Several of the items in #337 <https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/337> are worth discussing - If you want to review and weigh in on the other public-comment-period issues, please do it before the call - Release notes <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+Release+Notes> are getting more fleshed out; review (and contributions) welcome - Finalizing the specs - When will we be ready to vote on progressing specs to the LC and then to All-Member Ballot? - UMA2 logo ideas - AOB *Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Several comments
by Guttner, Ondrej 12 Jul '17

12 Jul '17

Hi all, During the implementation of the standard, I came across several points I think needs to be cleared (at least to me, and I hope the reason is not my stupidity). I know the public comment period ends tomorrow, so I rather use this method of communication, so as, if there is something useful in the list, it is not missed. I wrote some of these remarks down during reading of the older versions, and now I tried to look whether it has already been changed, so excuse me, if I miss something, that was already added. https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/wg/oauth-uma-federated-authz-2.0-05.…: 1) 5.1.1: For exp, the behavior for absent value is defined. iat and nbf are missing definition for this state. Although it is quite intuitive (“if absent, the token-level value takes precedence”), might be worth include it to prevent possible misunderstandings. https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/wg/oauth-uma-grant-2.0-05.html: 1) 3.3: “The client has obtained OAuth client credentials from the authorization server, …, and is prepared to authenticate itself to the token endpoint if appropriate.” RFC6749 – 3.2.1: “Confidential clients or other clients issued client credentials MUST authenticate with the authorization server as described in Section 2.3 when making requests to the token endpoint.” Doesn’t this mean, that in UMA, the client requesting at the token EP MUST always authenticate? The formulation from uma_grant 3.3 may lead to a conclusion there exists a situation in which it is not necessary to authenticate. 2) 3.3.2: If AS supports RFC7591, it MUST allow clients to register claims_redirect_uri (as mentioned in 2.), but it is not defined, how this parameter looks like (array?, space separated?) Shouldn’t it be better to have “claims_redirect_uris”? (RFC7591 defines redirect_uris also in plural). In RFC6749, redirection URI (which is similar from the security point of view to the claims redir URI) SHOULD require the use of TLS and MUST be registered for public clients. In addition, an incomplete redirection URI is enabled, and some other features. Wouldn’t it be beneficial to define claims redirection URI with reference to the definition of redirection URI? 3) 3.3.3: I personally would extend the first sentence to “ … of the claims redirection URI resolved according to the algorithm described in previous section using the …”. Otherwise, any preregistered claims redirection URI might be used (I know you would need to be an evil implementer to do this, but hey, who isn’t a bit?). 4) 3.3.3: The example response from AS is actually a request. 5) 3.3.4: This whole section makes the permission concept unclear to me. I suppose, that a request for RPT can contain multiple tuples (resource, scopes), where the scopes for each resource may be different. Section 3.3.4 puts an impression on me, that all these scopes sets are actually identical. Namely: “Let a set called PermissionTicket stand for the scopes associated with the permission ticket” does not distinguish between all the permissions that can be bound to the permission ticket. The example does not help in this either, as it concerns only a single resource. I’d suggest to add something like: “This authorization assessment holds for any permission bound to the permission ticket received by the AS.” Subsequently, it needs to be made clear, what happens if CandidateGrantedScopes < RequestedScopes for not all of the requested permissions. 6) 3.3.5: Described in https://github.com/KantaraInitiative/wg-uma/issues/332 7) 5.6: Permission ticket is similar in use to authorization code in OAuth (both are single use, may be transferred over plain HTTP), but the latter is influenced by additional security measure – if the same code is observed twice by AS, it should attempt to revoke all access tokens issued based on that code. Shouldn’t this be considered also for the permission ticket and relevant RPTs? I hope, it was not a loss of time for you to read through these lines. Kind regards, Ondrej Atos IT Solutions and Services, s.r.o. - CEO: Martin Sùra - registered in the Commercial Register of the Municipal Court in Prague, Sec. C, File 8954, Registered office: Doudlebská 1699/5, 140 00 Prague 4, Czech Republic, IÈ: 44851391, DIÈ: CZ44851391, Bank connection: UniCredit Bank Czech Republic a.s., Na Pøíkopì 858/20, 113 80 Praha 1, Acc. Nr. CZK: 1001885001/2700, IBAN CZK - CZ4627000000001001885001; Acc. Nr. EUR: 1001885095/2700, IBAN EUR - CZ3027000000001001885095 Tato zpráva má pouze informativní charakter, který vychází z podkladù, které byly odesílateli pøedány, nebo zaslány. Obsah této zprávy odesílatele nezavazuje, pokud to v ní není výslovnì uvedeno a odesílatel nemá v úmyslu na základì této zprávy uzavøít smlouvu, pøijmout nabídku, potvrdit uzavøení smlouvy ani nezakládá pøedsmluvní odpovìdnost jejího odesílatele, ledaže je odesílatelem ve zprávì uvedeno výslovnì jinak.Tato zpráva je urèena pouze pro osobní a dùvìrné užití osobou (osobami) uvedenou (uvedenými) výše. Nejste-li osobou, které je tato zpráva urèena, upozoròujeme Vás, že jakékoli šíøení, distribuce èi kopírování této zprávy je zakázáno. Jestliže tuto zprávu omylem obdržíte, prosíme, oznamte tuto skuteènost odesílateli a vymažte ji ze svého systému. The sole purpose of this message is to provide information based on materials that were given or sent to the sender. The content of the message does not place its sender under any obligation, unless expressly stated otherwise, and the sender has no intention to conclude a contract, accept an offer or confirm the conclusion of a contract on the basis of this message nor shall the message give rise to pre-contractual liability of the sender, unless it expressly states otherwise. The message is only intended for private, confidential use by a person (persons) mentioned above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying thereof is prohibited. If you have received the message in error, please, inform the sender of the fact and delete it from your system.

2 1

Fwd: Registration Now Open - WG11 Midyear Meeting on Sept. 18-19, 2017 in San Diego
by John Wunderlich 12 Jul '17

12 Jul '17

For lawyers in the UMA legal group: https://thesedonaconference.org/node/108179? Two issues raised may be of interest to this group: - The latest draft of a commentary on reasonable or unreasonable data security measures - A brainstorming group outline on legal issues in cloud computing John Wunderlich, BA, MBA @PrivacyCDN <https://twitter.com/PrivacyCDN> *Privacy Tools* Kantara Initiative <https://kantarainitiative.org/>: Consent Receipt Specification <https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/infosharing/Consent+Receip…> JLINC Labs <https://www.jlinclabs.com/>: Data Provenance Solutions <https://www.jlinclabs.com/solutions/> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: The Sedona Conference <info(a)sedonaconference.org> Date: 12 July 2017 at 09:34 Subject: Registration Now Open - WG11 Midyear Meeting on Sept. 18-19, 2017 in San Diego To: John Wunderlich <john(a)wunderlich.ca> [image: Logo] [image: Facebook] <https://thesedonaconference.org/sites/sedona.civicactions.net/modules/civic…> [image: Twitter] <https://thesedonaconference.org/sites/sedona.civicactions.net/modules/civic…> [image: LinkedIn] <https://thesedonaconference.org/sites/sedona.civicactions.net/modules/civic…> Working Group 11 on Data Security and Privacy Liability *Midyear Meeting 2017* Sept. 18-19 San Diego, CA When: September 18-19, 2017 Where: Rancho Bernardo Inn San Diego, CA Registration Fee: Regular Registration Fee: $1195 Government Employees: $895 Register Now <https://thesedonaconference.org/sites/sedona.civicactions.net/modules/civic…> Schedule of Events: - Meet-and-greet reception: 6:00 pm – September 17 - Start of Meeting: 8:45 am – September 18 - Reception: 5:15 pm – 7:15 pm - September 18 - End of meeting: 1:00 pm – September 19 MCLE: We are applying for MCLE credit. *REGISTRATION NOW OPEN* Register now for the 2017 Midyear Meeting of Working Group 11 at the Rancho Bernardo Inn in San Diego, California, on Monday-Tuesday, September 18-19, 2017. A welcome reception will be held on the evening of Sunday, September 17, from 6-8 pm. Please click here to visit the meeting webpage and to register <https://thesedonaconference.org/sites/sedona.civicactions.net/modules/civic…> . The meeting’s focus will be on new and updated work product in need of WG11 member review and comment, including: - Privilege in the data security litigation context - Law firm data security - Data security and privacy issues in civil litigation - Reasonable or unreasonable data security measures - Legal issues in cloud computing In addition, the meeting will again feature a data protection regulator roundtable. International developments in the field of data security and privacy issues will also be discussed, and the data security and privacy implications of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and Blockchain will be the focus of dialogue. Please check back in the next week or so for the complete agenda, and for names and biographies of confirmed dialogue leaders. Hotel Room Information We have obtained a very favorable room rate for WG11 members of $239 per night, plus tax. This favorable room rate is available for three nights preceding and three nights following the meeting, subject to standard guestroom availability. *Our room block expires on Thursday, August 25, 2017, so please register soon while rooms are available.* Complete hotel reservation details will be provided with your meeting registration confirmation. Membership *In order to attend the meeting you must be a member of WG11. If you are interested in attending the meeting but are not yet a member, you can become a member by signing up for a Working Group Series (WGS) membership <https://thesedonaconference.org/sites/sedona.civicactions.net/modules/civic…>.* Once a WGS member, one is eligible to take part in the activities of all Working Groups, including WG11. If you have any questions about how to sign up for a membership, register for the meeting, or encounter any difficulties while doing either, please contact Irina Goldberg at IGG(a)sedonaconference.org. Please join your fellow WG11 members at the 2017 Midyear Meeting in San Diego! ------------------------------ 301 East Bethany Home Road, Suite C-297, Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone 602-258-4910 <(602)%20258-4910> Email info(a)sedonaconference.org ------------------------------ Copyright 2017 The Sedona Conference You are currently signed up to receive newsletters. To unsubscribe click here <https://thesedonaconference.org/index.php?q=civicrm/mailing/optout&reset=1&…> If you would like to resubscribe to receive emails from The Sedona Conference click resubscribe <e.4389.4148193.12910ccda163eff1@thesedonaconference.org?subject=I%20would%20like%20to%20resubscribe%20to%20TSC%20emails&I%20would%20like%20to%20resubscribe%20to%20TSC%20emails> -- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

1 0