My apologies for missing the meeting this AM. I am traveling.
Kind regards,
Scott
From: wg-uma-bounces@kantarainitiative.org <wg-uma-bounces@kantarainitiative.org> on behalf of Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com>
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 9:03 AM
To: wg-uma@kantarainitiative.org WG
Subject: [WG-UMA] Notes from UMA legal subgroup telecon 2015-10-23
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 9:03 AM
To: wg-uma@kantarainitiative.org WG
Subject: [WG-UMA] Notes from UMA legal subgroup telecon 2015-10-23
Attending: Eve, Adrian, Ann, Andrew H, Jeff, Mark, Tim, Jim, Domenico, Dazza
Regrets: Jon, Steve
Mark L’s very interesting new blog post is a positive innovation-centric view of consent and what may come after the “easy path” is denied to organizations.
 |
The Consent Receipt
A new and necessary tool for the digital age
|
On that note, please join Eve’s Twitter chat Tue Nov 3 9am PT! The hashtag is #ConsentFutures.
Two tasks we can do today: Jim’s “stack dance” and a walkthrough of Binding Obs to get inspired about UMA-specific model clauses. Andrew H is working on a project right now that involves something very much like Binding Obs. They’re currently
calling them “commitments”. Some RS’s are independently operated, and they’re trying to persuade them, partly through contracts, to play ball. The technical layer is easy: “Follow the spec.” But at the business program level, they have to care, and at the
legal contract level, it’s obviously relevant. (B&L are the challenge, not T.)
Adrian points to this Wired article about FB Messenger having a leg up over other apps/platforms because of its identity
footprint. He sees UMA having an opportunity to provide an alternative. Eve wonders if this is relevant to his point about making the RS more comfortable with the UMA proposition by enabling RqP authentication (and maybe even claims-gathering?) through the
RS. This is additionally to letting the RS continue to vet the RqP. Andrew thinks some of these could work on a B level and will provide feedback.
Regarding who logs in to whom, this is a government sector project, and there are certain cultural identity practices, resulting in unique tensions and also degrees of trust. Andrew’s new term for trust frameworks is “faith frameworks”. :-) This
reminds Eve of Prof. Munindar Singh’s work on “sociotechnical systems”, where “commitments is the formal name for what we’ve called obligations. Here are the references we previously shared with the WG:
Readings sent by Prof. Munindar Singh:
- [Basic: if you have time for one paper] Norms as a Basis for Governing Sociotechnical Systems. This is a five-page extended abstract of a longer journal article.
- [Computational mapping to data stores; short but somewhat technical] Cupid: Commitments in Relational Algebra.
- [More on the conception of commitments; easy read] Commitments in Multiagent Systems: Some History, Some Confusions, Some Controversies, Some Prospects.
Model clauses are now a very popular notion for starting to solve our problems. The head of Microsoft Legal was talking about this in a blog post recently. A “legal stack” in CommonAccord means that a single outline can be built, and then the
EU model clauses in each language can be mapped to the singular outline in turn. A contract outline has been put together that uses Dazza’s BLT ordering. This is why you can see {Business.Sec}, {Legal.Sec}, and then {Technical.Sec} as the sections in the outline.
Andrew asks for great sources of Safe Harbor news. Here are some:
- Jon’s blog: DataLaw.net
- Jon’s Twitter feed: @jonneiditz
- Jim’s Twitter feed: @CommonAccord
How does someone create their own documents/legal stacks/contracts? One can fork the code, or create pull requests, or… Jim has created some “pretend namespaces” at CommonAccord, such as “GHx” to represent the CommonAccord mirroring of GitHub
repos living elsewhere, and “W” for the WWW generally, and “TW” for Twitter accounts. He also has “at” is for locations. Someday the app could go client-side so it could be everywhere. Ideally it should be understood as a file system by those who use it. The
link at the top of the “Source” pages could then go and fetch the content live.
The terms on the left of a stack, such as “DEO” for data-exporting organization, are just made up by the author. There’s no magic in it. It’s just a string that’s the name of a constant. Eventually the software will want to be able to handle some
simple match, searches, etc.
Andrew needs to have a well-described approach by mid-November. By late spring, they are looking to have the “commitments” and even some contracts settled. Can Andrew start to list the documents needed? We can start to put together draft versions,
and assemble a stack. Andrew is currently trying to identify all the parties and transactions involved. He can share all that in a week or two.