As mentioned on the last call, we’ve completed the planning for a sort of "next-gen" legal subgroup meeting series. The regular weekly meeting time starts this Friday, August 7, at 8-9am PT (check the UMA calendar <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Calendar> for your local listings, and let me know if you haven’t been added to the invite but would like to be). Dazza made a great suggestion to me offline. Now that the newly interested legal UMAnitarians have all gotten signed up and subscribed to this list*, it would be ideal to get ahead of the curve and use email to start discussing the draft mission statement that I sent out as part of the planning process, to try and get consensus on a final mission, scope out what can be achieved in the 2015 timeframe, and maybe paint a sample picture of what you think a (tiny) portion of the result might look like (without ratholing on actual arguments and solutions for now!). Based on our brief July 16 <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2015-07-16> WG discussion, I came up with this draft: Develop recommendations about resource owner-and-requesting party [Alice-and-Bob], resource server-and-authorization server [service-and-hub], and any other transactional relationships in the UMA environment, keeping in mind international jurisdictional friendliness; applicability to many different vertical and horizontal use cases, including health; and support of higher-level access federation trust frameworks and similar efforts. With no surrounding context from our May-July WG discussions, it may not make all that much sense, so that’s one bug. Useful context might include: Generalizing away from the current Binding Obs approach somehow, while ensuring the result helps those who want to build access federation trust frameworks Considering how various tools in a lawyer’s toolbox might impact and be impacted by UMA’s native structure, such as “transactions”, consent”, license”, contract”, and even “data protection” and “privacy” Tom S in the past pointed us to UETA <http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/electronic%20transactions/ueta_final_99.pdf>, which we then referenced in the current Binding Obs draft (the link is old and broken, however) Tim R has mentioned the UCITA law <http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Computer%20Information%20Transactions%20Act> to me as being evocative Taking a use-case-oriented approach rather than necessarily solving for All The Parties, e.g.: We first discussed Alice-and-Bob use cases on May 28 <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+telecon+2015-05-28>, with Kantara Consent Receipt liaison implications Adrian brought the service-and-hub use case to the table to achieve particular “liability shift” goals in a patient-centric health setting Clear as mud? :-) I hope this gives a feel for the “pain” and the opportunity. Thanks, everyone. Eve *Note: The intent is to conduct all subgroup work on this list so that it’s archived, there’s no question about who has seen what, and everyone can follow along. Our list gets little enough traffic that I hope this won’t be a problem for anyone. Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl@gmail.com