Eve; More grist for the mill, or possibly water already under the bridge. See page 21 of the attached document on the ‘capacity to consent and assent’. This is about consent for research at SickKids hospital. What the scenarios elide, perhaps because its out of scope, is who gets to make the decision about the capacity of the data subject to give consent. It may not simply be a matter of age, and if there is someone acting for the data subject for a limited time, should they have the authority to grant a license that will last longer than their authority? BTW, references to TCPS are to this: http://pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default... JW From: WG-UMA on behalf of Eve Maler Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 20:51 To: "wg-uma@kantarainitiative.org WG" Subject: [WG-UMA] The Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/Fiduciary%20Access%20to%20Digital%20A... In our last call (now a month past), we discussed this use case a bit, and Tim has sent me some scenarios so that we dig into it a bit more deeply in this week's call; see below. The "parent-child resource management use case has three life stages (little Johnny is too young to use digital resources; old enough to use them but too young to consent; and finally old enough to consent and thus kick his legal guardian out of being in the resource owner/Resource Rights Administrator role). The RUFADAA use case is "life stage 4", if you will... It would be cool if we could get enough understanding/consensus on the call to be able to construct clean slide diagrams for all this (like we have for little Johnny and Alice now). Oh, and if anyone knows of any similar laws in other jurisdictions, that would be great too. ==== 3 Scenarios: 1) User (Alice) creates a disclosure permission plan (for future event of death or mental incapacity) 2) User (Alice) creates a Trust and makes an inter vivos (i.e. during Alice's lifetime) transfer of digital assets to the Trust for administration by Trustee (as, in effect, a successor User); Alice may or may not create a disclosure permission plan 3) User (Alice) does not create a disclosure permission plan for digital assets; fiduciaries create the disclosure permission plan after their appointment Scenario 1 User = Data Subject Custodian = Resource Server Operator Designated Recipient = AS Fiduciary = Resource Owner (or administrator) Scenario 2 User = Data Subject or Successor User (Trustee) = Resource Owner (or administrator) Designated Recipient = AS Custodian = Resource Server Operator Scenario 3 User (Fiduciary) = Resource Owner Designated Recipient = AS Custodian = Resource Server Operator Keep in mind that RUFADAA desines "User" as the person that creates the account with the Custodian Eve Maler Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl _______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma -- 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.