Eve, That seems right. The Model Clauses have the virtue of being a big bridge, as Scott discussed. Bridging the Atlantic. Here is a demo for a fictive French sub of a US company, transferring to headquarters. I remain a non-expert in the field, so the completions are whatever came to mind. http://new.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=source&file=Wx/eu/europa/eur-lex/OJ-L-2010-039-0005-0018-EN/Demo/Doc_v0.md Jim On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Eve Maler wrote:

Thanks for this, Jim!

The Model Clauses seem very useful because:

- They assume data transfer to countries without an (I assume WP29) “Adequate” level of protection (so it’s a “worst case”) - They define terms around parties that “touch” data about subjects, in a six-degrees-of-separation way - They help the data subject handle/enforce liability in case of changes in business relationships among the "data touchers” over time - They have some relevance to all of our meta-use cases because (I think) we could map them to RO-RqP, RO-AS, and RS-AS relationships

I’m assuming RO = data subject. Is that fair? Note that when an UMA “protected resource” could be broader than or different from EU-defined personal data, but there will be many important cases where an UMA protected resource is, or includes, personal data. Examples, counterexamples, and weird examples:

- RO = an individual, and PR = an identity attribute (obvious personal data) - RO = an individual, and PR = an uploaded photo of a pastoral scene taken by the RO (maybe the photo’s digital metadata reveals personal data or maybe it doesn’t; the subject of the photo is not the RO and has no faces in it) - RO = an organization rather than a human, and PR = corporate IP (no personal data, though it’s valuable and sensitive) - RO = an individual or organization, and PR = an API endpoint for using an RO-developed algorithm for which the RO wants to charge RqPs a fee (no personal data, though it’s valuable and possibly sensitive if it’s, say, patented or a trade secret)

Eve

On 9 Oct 2015, at 7:28 PM, James Hazard wrote:

As we map out a source-based approach to the text of personal information transfers EU->US, I presume that the Model Clauses are important. Here I've begun the process of automating one of the sets.

http://new.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=list&file=Wx/eu/europa/eur-lex/OJ-L-2010-039-0005-0018-EN/Form/

They are not yet automated, so won't render into a form (I'll get to that as _v0.md, then when it seems solid, freeze it as _v01.md). Please let me know if (i) this seems relevant, (ii) the URL seems ok (mirrors the source), (iii) other.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Eve Maler wrote:

...

- *Fri Oct 9* 8-9am PT - Voice: Skype: +99051000000481 or US +1-805-309-2350 (international dial-in lines https://www.turbobridge.com/join.html), room code 178-2540# - Screen sharing: http://join.me/findthomas - *NOTE:* *IGNORE* the join.me dial-in line shown here in favor of the dial-in info above (Kantara "line C" and the Skype line) - UMA calendar: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Calendar

- How have we done on our next steps? - Everyone please contribute “mile-wide, inch-deep examples on contract terms examples across all three meta-use cases — at least one of each kind (IT’S NOT TOO LATE! :-) ) - Jim H walks through his Common Accord structure and examples to help us capture our examples and understand all of his

Attending: Eve, Andrew Hughes, Steve, Adrian, Mark, Tim, Jim, Jon, Dazza, Ann, Scott, Mary Hodder

Jim and Adrian have sent out a putative “Simplest Possible UMA Contract https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IvuencOdrtShE6FCIu9v5eTO3Qjl4i1JnaDnCXC4...” document that structures a healthcare Release of Information form along the lines of an “imagined UMA” that does things that UMA today doesn’t do (as Adrian cautions, don’t get caught up in the technicalities). It uses the CommonAccord http://new.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=list&file=GHx/KantaraInitiative/ROI/Simple/Demo/ framework/data model for a mapping to the Restatement of Agency work that Adrian and Eve had attempted previously.

Which meta-use case(s), if any, does this text address? It seems like it’s about RS-AS; we talked about it last time. There’s been some discussion about herd immunity, where some parties engage in selfish behavior, and if enough of them do, then other free riders can benefit such that the aggregate risk reduction ends up having selfless aspects (Scott’s “stopping at red lights” example). There can be a “tragedy of the commons” problem if there’s over-engagement in the behavior that doesn’t confer herd immunity. So the desirable behavior that weighs on the side of risk reduction has got to be valuable in and of itself often enough. The incentives have to be high enough. Put another way, as seen as is being sought with certification programs, UMA adoption should be able to drive "network effects”.

The idea is that similarity of bankruptcy clause, notice clause, etc. is what gives the aggregate value. It’s “legal interoperability”. Jim’s work lets us slice and dice contracts.

We drilled down on the RO-RS portion of the text, which leads to the CommonAccord framework portions that modularly lead to constructed contracts. E.g., RO Alice has this first name and this last name, and live in Dallas. Dallas, of course, is in a particular jurisdiction. Different jurisdictions have wildly different implications.

The way the framework works, the “*Source*" is hosted on GitHub, and Jim’s site pulls it in. It can be “*Edit*”ed right there. The “*Document*” view dereferences the pointers in the source. Jim got into doing this through the “smart contracts” path in a blockchain context, though this is not technically an instance of that.

Knowing that the latest Safe Harbor news has upset the current ecosystem, it appears there may be an appetite to restate the requirements in a new way. Suddenly some parties may not be well served by the way legal text is handled in the current system.

With consent receipts in the picture, does it make sense to have a CommonAccord way to capture agreements and receipts? This may indeed be productive. Effectively, GitHub can be the audit log. And then, of course, the logs have to be mutually available to the parties, nonrepudiable, and tamper-proof. Blockchain technology could come into play here. An escrow agent role can make sense (again, blockchain is relevant here).

There’s a larger ecosystem of contracts management and vendor management in which (e.g.) hospitals already have to operate, so whether UMA is used or not, a system like this one could be relevant if it lowers cost and friction. But then if UMA uses it, it becomes more attractive.

Thinking of blockchain as a ledger, the ledger is not the actual money. A ledger has a separate value that can be measured and acquired.

What sorts of deliverables should we consider producing? Some options…

1. Previously produced: Auditable junctures in the protocol (the UMA “state changes” to which we attached some clauses in Binding Obs) 2. Previously produced: An indivisible set of “axiomatic” clauses we thought deployers of UMA should adopt (the Binding Obs clauses - dependent on #1) 3. Future option: Specific auditable junctures that should have consent receipts attached to them (build on #1?) 4. Future option: CommonAccord-expressed consent receipts 5. Future option: Recommendations about how to literally store and manage these consent receipts in CommonAccord (build on #4?) 6. Future option: Recommendations about specific language that meets our meta-use cases and business models

The EU has model clauses. Could we build on those? The “boring approach” is to get agreement on the things that matter the least. It won’t solve our problems, but it starts to build a solution and gets some success.

*AI:* Jim, Eve (and invite Jon and Dazza and Steve): Whip up some model clause thinking for the subgroup next week. Eve to send an invite for a midweek ad hoc to do preparatory work.

*AI:* Adrian, Eve: Document the delta between the UMA-that-is and the UMA-that-is-posited by this new doc.

Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl@gmail.com

_______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma

Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl@gmail.com

This is INCREDIBLY important work that Jim is now doing, for trans-Atlantic trade, for the future of privacy, for UMA and for VRM, and Jim, the model clauses have proven the PERFECT vehicle for Common Accord. I’m so sorry that I missed some of yesterday’s call (literally passing out due to a pretty sleepless week, but maybe the minutes don’t need to so reflect), but let me make up for it by giving a preliminary, simple, provocative response to Eve’s email of last night. Under the model clauses: RO = Data Subject RS = Controller, Processor AND Subprocessor (AKA Exporter/Importer) AS = NOBODY yet, which is why the Data Subject’s rights are all third party beneficiary rights. But an AS would authorize sharing with RS’s offering model clauses or modifications thereto. Which is why UMA can now extend EU privacy to people around the world (a lot of bridges, if that was what Scott meant when I was passed out). D’Accord? Jon Neiditz Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Suite 2800 | 1100 Peachtree Street NE | Atlanta, GA 30309-4528 office 404 815 6004 | cell 678-427-7809 | fax 770 234 6341 jneiditz@kilpatricktownsend.commailto:jneiditz@kilpatricktownsend.com | My Profilehttp://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/en/Who%20We%20Are/Professionals/N/NeiditzJ... | vCardhttp://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/_assets/vcards/professionals/NeiditzJonath... [cid:image005.png@01D10351.3B2A0960]https://www.linkedin.com/in/informationmanagementlaw [cid:image006.png@01D10351.3B2A0960] http://www.twitter.com/jonneiditz From: wg-uma-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:wg-uma-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of James Hazard Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:07 AM To: Eve Maler Cc: wg-uma@kantarainitiative.org UMA Subject: Re: [WG-UMA] Notes from UMA legal subgroup telecon 2015-10-09 The Demo (EU-US Model Clauses) now makes reference to ~standardized~ security regimes. That might be a place to specify best practices. http://new.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=source&file=Wx/eu/europa/eur-lex/OJ-L-2010-039-0005-0018-EN/Demo/Doc_v0.md (Click on "Document", look for the orange and magenta text near the end in Appendix 1) On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 7:01 AM, James Hazard mailto:jh@hazardj.com> wrote: Eve, That seems right. The Model Clauses have the virtue of being a big bridge, as Scott discussed. Bridging the Atlantic. Here is a demo for a fictive French sub of a US company, transferring to headquarters. I remain a non-expert in the field, so the completions are whatever came to mind. http://new.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=source&file=Wx/eu/europa/eur-lex/OJ-L-2010-039-0005-0018-EN/Demo/Doc_v0.md Jim On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Eve Maler mailto:eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote: Thanks for this, Jim! The Model Clauses seem very useful because: * They assume data transfer to countries without an (I assume WP29) “Adequate” level of protection (so it’s a “worst case”) * They define terms around parties that “touch” data about subjects, in a six-degrees-of-separation way * They help the data subject handle/enforce liability in case of changes in business relationships among the "data touchers” over time * They have some relevance to all of our meta-use cases because (I think) we could map them to RO-RqP, RO-AS, and RS-AS relationships I’m assuming RO = data subject. Is that fair? Note that when an UMA “protected resource” could be broader than or different from EU-defined personal data, but there will be many important cases where an UMA protected resource is, or includes, personal data. Examples, counterexamples, and weird examples: * RO = an individual, and PR = an identity attribute (obvious personal data) * RO = an individual, and PR = an uploaded photo of a pastoral scene taken by the RO (maybe the photo’s digital metadata reveals personal data or maybe it doesn’t; the subject of the photo is not the RO and has no faces in it) * RO = an organization rather than a human, and PR = corporate IP (no personal data, though it’s valuable and sensitive) * RO = an individual or organization, and PR = an API endpoint for using an RO-developed algorithm for which the RO wants to charge RqPs a fee (no personal data, though it’s valuable and possibly sensitive if it’s, say, patented or a trade secret) Eve On 9 Oct 2015, at 7:28 PM, James Hazard mailto:jh@hazardj.com> wrote: As we map out a source-based approach to the text of personal information transfers EU->US, I presume that the Model Clauses are important. Here I've begun the process of automating one of the sets. http://new.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=list&file=Wx/eu/europa/eur-lex/OJ-L-2010-039-0005-0018-EN/Form/ They are not yet automated, so won't render into a form (I'll get to that as _v0.mdhttp://v0.md/, then when it seems solid, freeze it as _v01.mdhttp://v01.md/). Please let me know if (i) this seems relevant, (ii) the URL seems ok (mirrors the source), (iii) other. On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Eve Maler mailto:eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote: · Fri Oct 9 8-9am PT · Voice: Skype: +99051000000481 or US +1-805-309-2350tel:%2B1-805-309-2350 (international dial-in lineshttps://www.turbobridge.com/join.html), room code 178-2540# · Screen sharing: http://join.me/findthomas - NOTE: IGNORE the join.mehttp://join.me/ dial-in line shown here in favor of the dial-in info above (Kantara "line C" and the Skype line) · UMA calendar: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Calendar * How have we done on our next steps? * Everyone please contribute “mile-wide, inch-deep examples on contract terms examples across all three meta-use cases — at least one of each kind (IT’S NOT TOO LATE! :-) ) * Jim H walks through his Common Accord structure and examples to help us capture our examples and understand all of his Attending: Eve, Andrew Hughes, Steve, Adrian, Mark, Tim, Jim, Jon, Dazza, Ann, Scott, Mary Hodder Jim and Adrian have sent out a putative “Simplest Possible UMA Contracthttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1IvuencOdrtShE6FCIu9v5eTO3Qjl4i1JnaDnCXC4...” document that structures a healthcare Release of Information form along the lines of an “imagined UMA” that does things that UMA today doesn’t do (as Adrian cautions, don’t get caught up in the technicalities). It uses the CommonAccordhttp://new.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=list&file=GHx/KantaraInitiative/ROI/Simple/Demo/ framework/data model for a mapping to the Restatement of Agency work that Adrian and Eve had attempted previously. Which meta-use case(s), if any, does this text address? It seems like it’s about RS-AS; we talked about it last time. There’s been some discussion about herd immunity, where some parties engage in selfish behavior, and if enough of them do, then other free riders can benefit such that the aggregate risk reduction ends up having selfless aspects (Scott’s “stopping at red lights” example). There can be a “tragedy of the commons” problem if there’s over-engagement in the behavior that doesn’t confer herd immunity. So the desirable behavior that weighs on the side of risk reduction has got to be valuable in and of itself often enough. The incentives have to be high enough. Put another way, as seen as is being sought with certification programs, UMA adoption should be able to drive "network effects”. The idea is that similarity of bankruptcy clause, notice clause, etc. is what gives the aggregate value. It’s “legal interoperability”. Jim’s work lets us slice and dice contracts. We drilled down on the RO-RS portion of the text, which leads to the CommonAccord framework portions that modularly lead to constructed contracts. E.g., RO Alice has this first name and this last name, and live in Dallas. Dallas, of course, is in a particular jurisdiction. Different jurisdictions have wildly different implications. The way the framework works, the “Source" is hosted on GitHub, and Jim’s site pulls it in. It can be “Edit”ed right there. The “Document” view dereferences the pointers in the source. Jim got into doing this through the “smart contracts” path in a blockchain context, though this is not technically an instance of that. Knowing that the latest Safe Harbor news has upset the current ecosystem, it appears there may be an appetite to restate the requirements in a new way. Suddenly some parties may not be well served by the way legal text is handled in the current system. With consent receipts in the picture, does it make sense to have a CommonAccord way to capture agreements and receipts? This may indeed be productive. Effectively, GitHub can be the audit log. And then, of course, the logs have to be mutually available to the parties, nonrepudiable, and tamper-proof. Blockchain technology could come into play here. An escrow agent role can make sense (again, blockchain is relevant here). There’s a larger ecosystem of contracts management and vendor management in which (e.g.) hospitals already have to operate, so whether UMA is used or not, a system like this one could be relevant if it lowers cost and friction. But then if UMA uses it, it becomes more attractive. Thinking of blockchain as a ledger, the ledger is not the actual money. A ledger has a separate value that can be measured and acquired. What sorts of deliverables should we consider producing? Some options… 1. Previously produced: Auditable junctures in the protocol (the UMA “state changes” to which we attached some clauses in Binding Obs) 2. Previously produced: An indivisible set of “axiomatic” clauses we thought deployers of UMA should adopt (the Binding Obs clauses - dependent on #1) 3. Future option: Specific auditable junctures that should have consent receipts attached to them (build on #1?) 4. Future option: CommonAccord-expressed consent receipts 5. Future option: Recommendations about how to literally store and manage these consent receipts in CommonAccord (build on #4?) 6. Future option: Recommendations about specific language that meets our meta-use cases and business models The EU has model clauses. Could we build on those? The “boring approach” is to get agreement on the things that matter the least. It won’t solve our problems, but it starts to build a solution and gets some success. AI: Jim, Eve (and invite Jon and Dazza and Steve): Whip up some model clause thinking for the subgroup next week. Eve to send an invite for a midweek ad hoc to do preparatory work. AI: Adrian, Eve: Document the delta between the UMA-that-is and the UMA-that-is-posited by this new doc. Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756tel:%2B1%20425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl@gmail.commailto:xmlgrrl@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756tel:%2B1%20425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl@gmail.commailto:xmlgrrl@gmail.com ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

The French language version is now in the system. Because it is late here, I did not make a new example, but added it to the example above. The example now renders in both English and French. The result is imperfect, but shows a way to manage multiple languages, as the hypothetical UK overlay shows a way to manage multiple jurisdictions. On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 6:18 PM, James Hazard wrote:

:))) It has been a busy week for privacy experts, I hope you get some sleep.

It would be very interesting to have the group expand the "SecurityRegime" provisions - to play out what a really good regime for handling personal information would look like.

In the meantime, I added a layer for Member Countries to tweak the Model Clauses, using a hypothetical set for the UK. Still at: http://new.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=source&file=Wx/eu/europa/eur-lex/OJ-L-2010-039-0005-0018-EN/Demo/Doc_v0.md, but should probably be moved to GHx/KantaraInitiative/.

I'm inexpert in privacy, so very encouraged that you think it possible to use the EU-US situation to improve privacy generally. As I look at it, unburdened by knowledge, it seems a solution would involve information being dripped rather than poured, and staying near where it was collected.

When I get a chance, I'll do the French version.

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Neiditz, Jon < JNeiditz@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:

...

This is INCREDIBLY important work that Jim is now doing, for trans-Atlantic trade, for the future of privacy, for UMA and for VRM, and Jim, the model clauses have proven the PERFECT vehicle for Common Accord. I’m so sorry that I missed some of yesterday’s call (literally passing out due to a pretty sleepless week, but maybe the minutes don’t need to so reflect), but let me make up for it by giving a preliminary, simple, provocative response to Eve’s email of last night. Under the model clauses:

RO = Data Subject

RS = Controller, Processor AND Subprocessor (AKA Exporter/Importer)

AS = NOBODY yet, which is why the Data Subject’s rights are all third party beneficiary rights. But an AS would authorize sharing with RS’s offering model clauses or modifications thereto. Which is why UMA can now extend EU privacy to people around the world (a lot of bridges, if that was what Scott meant when I was passed out).

D’Accord?

*Jon Neiditz **Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP* Suite 2800 | 1100 Peachtree Street NE | Atlanta, GA 30309-4528 office 404 815 6004 | cell 678-427-7809 | fax 770 234 6341 jneiditz@kilpatricktownsend.com | My Profile http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/en/Who%20We%20Are/Professionals/N/NeiditzJ... | vCard http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/_assets/vcards/professionals/NeiditzJonath...

https://www.linkedin.com/in/informationmanagementlaw http://www.twitter.com/jonneiditz

*From:* wg-uma-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto: wg-uma-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] *On Behalf Of *James Hazard *Sent:* Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:07 AM *To:* Eve Maler *Cc:* wg-uma@kantarainitiative.org UMA *Subject:* Re: [WG-UMA] Notes from UMA legal subgroup telecon 2015-10-09

The Demo (EU-US Model Clauses) now makes reference to ~standardized~ security regimes. That might be a place to specify best practices.

http://new.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=source&file=Wx/eu/europa/eur-lex/OJ-L-2010-039-0005-0018-EN/Demo/Doc_v0.md

(Click on "Document", look for the orange and magenta text near the end in Appendix 1)

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 7:01 AM, James Hazard wrote:

Eve,

That seems right. The Model Clauses have the virtue of being a big bridge, as Scott discussed. Bridging the Atlantic.

Here is a demo for a fictive French sub of a US company, transferring to headquarters. I remain a non-expert in the field, so the completions are whatever came to mind.

http://new.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=source&file=Wx/eu/europa/eur-lex/OJ-L-2010-039-0005-0018-EN/Demo/Doc_v0.md

Jim

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Eve Maler wrote:

Thanks for this, Jim!

The Model Clauses seem very useful because:

- They assume data transfer to countries without an (I assume WP29) “Adequate” level of protection (so it’s a “worst case”) - They define terms around parties that “touch” data about subjects, in a six-degrees-of-separation way - They help the data subject handle/enforce liability in case of changes in business relationships among the "data touchers” over time - They have some relevance to all of our meta-use cases because (I think) we could map them to RO-RqP, RO-AS, and RS-AS relationships

I’m assuming RO = data subject. Is that fair? Note that when an UMA “protected resource” could be broader than or different from EU-defined personal data, but there will be many important cases where an UMA protected resource is, or includes, personal data. Examples, counterexamples, and weird examples:

- RO = an individual, and PR = an identity attribute (obvious personal data) - RO = an individual, and PR = an uploaded photo of a pastoral scene taken by the RO (maybe the photo’s digital metadata reveals personal data or maybe it doesn’t; the subject of the photo is not the RO and has no faces in it) - RO = an organization rather than a human, and PR = corporate IP (no personal data, though it’s valuable and sensitive) - RO = an individual or organization, and PR = an API endpoint for using an RO-developed algorithm for which the RO wants to charge RqPs a fee (no personal data, though it’s valuable and possibly sensitive if it’s, say, patented or a trade secret)

Eve

On 9 Oct 2015, at 7:28 PM, James Hazard wrote:

As we map out a source-based approach to the text of personal information transfers EU->US, I presume that the Model Clauses are important. Here I've begun the process of automating one of the sets.

http://new.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=list&file=Wx/eu/europa/eur-lex/OJ-L-2010-039-0005-0018-EN/Form/

They are not yet automated, so won't render into a form (I'll get to that as _v0.md, then when it seems solid, freeze it as _v01.md). Please let me know if (i) this seems relevant, (ii) the URL seems ok (mirrors the source), (iii) other.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Eve Maler wrote:

· *Fri Oct 9* 8-9am PT

· Voice: Skype: +99051000000481 or US +1-805-309-2350 (international dial-in lines https://www.turbobridge.com/join.html), room code 178-2540#

· Screen sharing: http://join.me/findthomas - *NOTE:* *IGNORE* the join.me dial-in line shown here in favor of the dial-in info above (Kantara "line C" and the Skype line)

· UMA calendar: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Calendar

- How have we done on our next steps?

- Everyone please contribute “mile-wide, inch-deep examples on contract terms examples across all three meta-use cases — at least one of each kind (IT’S NOT TOO LATE! :-) )

- Jim H walks through his Common Accord structure and examples to help us capture our examples and understand all of his

Attending: Eve, Andrew Hughes, Steve, Adrian, Mark, Tim, Jim, Jon, Dazza, Ann, Scott, Mary Hodder

Jim and Adrian have sent out a putative “Simplest Possible UMA Contract https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IvuencOdrtShE6FCIu9v5eTO3Qjl4i1JnaDnCXC4...” document that structures a healthcare Release of Information form along the lines of an “imagined UMA” that does things that UMA today doesn’t do (as Adrian cautions, don’t get caught up in the technicalities). It uses the CommonAccord http://new.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=list&file=GHx/KantaraInitiative/ROI/Simple/Demo/ framework/data model for a mapping to the Restatement of Agency work that Adrian and Eve had attempted previously.

Which meta-use case(s), if any, does this text address? It seems like it’s about RS-AS; we talked about it last time. There’s been some discussion about herd immunity, where some parties engage in selfish behavior, and if enough of them do, then other free riders can benefit such that the aggregate risk reduction ends up having selfless aspects (Scott’s “stopping at red lights” example). There can be a “tragedy of the commons” problem if there’s over-engagement in the behavior that doesn’t confer herd immunity. So the desirable behavior that weighs on the side of risk reduction has got to be valuable in and of itself often enough. The incentives have to be high enough. Put another way, as seen as is being sought with certification programs, UMA adoption should be able to drive "network effects”.

The idea is that similarity of bankruptcy clause, notice clause, etc. is what gives the aggregate value. It’s “legal interoperability”. Jim’s work lets us slice and dice contracts.

We drilled down on the RO-RS portion of the text, which leads to the CommonAccord framework portions that modularly lead to constructed contracts. E.g., RO Alice has this first name and this last name, and live in Dallas. Dallas, of course, is in a particular jurisdiction. Different jurisdictions have wildly different implications.

The way the framework works, the “*Source*" is hosted on GitHub, and Jim’s site pulls it in. It can be “*Edit*”ed right there. The “*Document*” view dereferences the pointers in the source. Jim got into doing this through the “smart contracts” path in a blockchain context, though this is not technically an instance of that.

Knowing that the latest Safe Harbor news has upset the current ecosystem, it appears there may be an appetite to restate the requirements in a new way. Suddenly some parties may not be well served by the way legal text is handled in the current system.

With consent receipts in the picture, does it make sense to have a CommonAccord way to capture agreements and receipts? This may indeed be productive. Effectively, GitHub can be the audit log. And then, of course, the logs have to be mutually available to the parties, nonrepudiable, and tamper-proof. Blockchain technology could come into play here. An escrow agent role can make sense (again, blockchain is relevant here).

There’s a larger ecosystem of contracts management and vendor management in which (e.g.) hospitals already have to operate, so whether UMA is used or not, a system like this one could be relevant if it lowers cost and friction. But then if UMA uses it, it becomes more attractive.

Thinking of blockchain as a ledger, the ledger is not the actual money. A ledger has a separate value that can be measured and acquired.

What sorts of deliverables should we consider producing? Some options…

1. Previously produced: Auditable junctures in the protocol (the UMA “state changes” to which we attached some clauses in Binding Obs) 2. Previously produced: An indivisible set of “axiomatic” clauses we thought deployers of UMA should adopt (the Binding Obs clauses - dependent on #1) 3. Future option: Specific auditable junctures that should have consent receipts attached to them (build on #1?) 4. Future option: CommonAccord-expressed consent receipts 5. Future option: Recommendations about how to literally store and manage these consent receipts in CommonAccord (build on #4?) 6. Future option: Recommendations about specific language that meets our meta-use cases and business models

The EU has model clauses. Could we build on those? The “boring approach” is to get agreement on the things that matter the least. It won’t solve our problems, but it starts to build a solution and gets some success.

*AI:* Jim, Eve (and invite Jon and Dazza and Steve): Whip up some model clause thinking for the subgroup next week. Eve to send an invite for a midweek ad hoc to do preparatory work.

*AI:* Adrian, Eve: Document the delta between the UMA-that-is and the UMA-that-is-posited by this new doc.

Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl@gmail.com

_______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma

Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl@gmail.com

------------------------------

Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.

------------------------------

***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

I agree that there will be a variety of legal frameworks for use cases - so RO could be a patient, customer, borrower, employ(er/ee), shareholder, whatever. Handling text as code allows pushing the framework into the background and channeling attention to things that matter/change. The EU-US Model Clauses are a kind of meta-use case - whatever you are doing, if it involves an EU party and a US party, you might need one of these. It focuses attention on the arrangements (e.g. http://new.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=source&file=GHx/KantaraInitiative/EU-US/SecurityProfile/Type1/Form/Doc_v0.md). Which will have some structure. Something like: - Generally, we: - Transmit data securely - Store data securely - Discard data when no longer needed - Vet and bind our employees and suppliers - ... - Implementation: - Hardware, software stack - Legal template stack - Practices - Audits .... - Reporting - Case (roles of RO): - patient - customer - borrower - employ(er/ee) - shareholder - party under NDA - parent at nursery school cooperative - ... Information availability may not be the heart of the transaction but I can't now think of a category of transaction that doesn't involve some staged access to information, so terms will cover a broad range of use cases. Terms might be expressed in conventional format - as signed agreements between parties - or might migrate to Terms of Use - a meta agreement which parties reference and adapt. Like the Model Clauses. On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Eve Maler wrote:

In the case where UMA might be used for something other than personal data, would it make sense to have a totally different CommonAccord framework with RO = some other kind of Principal? I still have this idea that some UMA technical framework somewhere will find it valuable to build in a claims-based payment system.

Oh, and…

[image: sleep-and-law.jpg]

On 10 Oct 2015, at 8:46 AM, Neiditz, Jon wrote:

This is INCREDIBLY important work that Jim is now doing, for trans-Atlantic trade, for the future of privacy, for UMA and for VRM, and Jim, the model clauses have proven the PERFECT vehicle for Common Accord. I’m so sorry that I missed some of yesterday’s call (literally passing out due to a pretty sleepless week, but maybe the minutes don’t need to so reflect), but let me make up for it by giving a preliminary, simple, provocative response to Eve’s email of last night. Under the model clauses:

RO = Data Subject

RS = Controller, Processor AND Subprocessor (AKA Exporter/Importer)

AS = NOBODY yet, which is why the Data Subject’s rights are all third party beneficiary rights. But an AS would authorize sharing with RS’s offering model clauses or modifications thereto. Which is why UMA can now extend EU privacy to people around the world (a lot of bridges, if that was what Scott meant when I was passed out).

D’Accord?

*Jon Neiditz **Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP* Suite 2800 | 1100 Peachtree Street NE | Atlanta, GA 30309-4528 office 404 815 6004 | cell 678-427-7809 | fax 770 234 6341 jneiditz@kilpatricktownsend.com | My Profile http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/en/Who%20We%20Are/Professionals/N/NeiditzJ... | vCard http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/_assets/vcards/professionals/NeiditzJonath...

https://www.linkedin.com/in/informationmanagementlaw http://www.twitter.com/jonneiditz

Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl@gmail.com