Your (1st party) Terms that companies agree to

First Party Terms

Tuesday 3E

Convener: Scott David & Doc Searls

Notes-taker(s): Scott David

Tags for the session - technology discussed/ideas considered:

Discussion notes, key understandings, outstanding questions, observations, and, if

appropriate to this discussion: action items, next steps:

User terms:

Assumption that always need to be subordinate party.

First party terms – resonates better.

When signing contract of adhesion, you are always a second party.

Question of the dance of contracting. What are the power relationships.

Customer commons is modeled on creative commons – do for terms what Creative commons did

for copyright.

Assumption that can come up with few simple terms to express what we want in a give context.

- E.g., do not track – Can this be put into terms, can be audited and can be enforced.

- e.g., how long the data is held is another.

Those terms are somewhat arcane to the intent casting scenario. There are settings in which those

are not workable in different contexts.

For our purposes, to begin with, take areas of practice and put them into customer commons things

that will be useful to the world.

Then question of how want to grow customer commons.

We then engaged in Kantara group review – consent and information sharing working group

reviewed.

Looked at models of no tracking and no stalking.

Look at ad blocking, etc.

Three kinds of advertising:

- Old fashioned brand advertising – not targeted

- Search advertising – correlation

- Tracking based – it is not advertising, it is direct marketing. Comes from the junk mail business – but looks like advertising.

What if people asked for ads not based on tracking – still allows analytics. Doesn’t speak to re-

identification.

Many folks say do not track, but what is the nature of the understanding had.

Question of using the stalking and talking terms. What is the impact of using tracking and stalking

terms.

Question of the spirit and the letter of the law. How manifest each.

There are pathways to violation of the spirit. Trying to create representations that get people in

trouble. Sometimes you violate your own bugs and don’t get in trouble.

How get enforcement of user terms.

With arrival of the GDPR, have chance of individuals t o instantiate the GDPR. Severe penalties

under it.

What if you put the GDPR into Virginia trust framework to offer terms as product in the US for

companies and people that want to carry forward elements into US relationships without

connection.

Look at Kantara Consent and Information sharing terms on website:

Have the human readable and legaleze versions of the language.

This is kantara project (under their terms) under the consent and information sharing group based

on work of customer commons. Customer commons will be where the terms live, that is main job of

the customer commons.

If you put in a term that says, “no third party sharing of information” make it so can be seen and

easily understood.

Company that uses the protocol to create intent casting on J-Link, for example, could see the flows.

J-Link protocol allows the assertion of terms and the receipt of answers to that term within the

context of that term.

Group meets on Monday AM, 8am pacific.

Want to develop more terms, multiple terms

Human readable, machine readable and engineering layer that has piece that can be “asked and

answered” about questions in terms. Cheddar is collection of best practices on server side, a

measurement of whether the standards are met.

There is not yet a lot of work on the machine readable stuff.

Want to generate something that NOT poisoned in favor of either party. Put it in the middle of the

interests, so that not hurt or harm one type of party from the inception.

Can have sun-setting provision that requires disposal of data after a time. Limits mischief of later

use of data.

How do we crank out the terms to those that are not confrontational.

Ian presentation on J-Link –

4 parties of JLINC described. And describe the user submitted terms. Coaching function described –

it provides terms for user to present, but not limited to those default terms.

It is a contract negotiation choreography tool and agreement capture tool.

Suggestion to think about things that benefit both parties and what they cannot do unilaterally.

They will come to this for cost savings and risk reduction. If company, must come for cost

reductions to maximize income for shareholders).

Unpacks the contract negotiation dance, and slows it down so that people don’t miss the nature of

the rights and duties being exchanged and negotiated.

Terms recommendation engine.

Like markets – what can you do unilaterally and what is best done in markets.

Can have terms that

What is the notion of pricing of their terms.

Pricing of terms – what is pricing.

Sliding scale of pricing.

Would like to take Faustian bargains off the table, but it may be honest to reveal the bargain that is

in fact being made.

That piece happening now – if running ad blocker – then pricing for access. More honest. Question

of whether one strategy is better than the other.

Did we discuss the permissions and obligations at W3C – artists create work and attach

permissions to the work. Have a policy language – with data. Verifiable claims stuff can do the

same thing. Could you hash that together and with work and use it as DRM.

Some are working on version based on Koala IP to gather with intent receipts – overlap on 95% of

the terms. Have a reference to PDF document.

Other promising part is in blockchain – san start to create real world use cases, personal data used

from first party perspective.

Can have a market in data rights that can help with pricing.