Decision Proposal 229 - CDR Participant Representation

[CDR-CX-Stream]

This is a placeholder for consultation on standards relating to CDR participant representation in the consent model to better support various data sharing models, including CDR representative arrangements and sponsorship arrangements.

This proposal is not yet ready for publication. This placeholder issue has been opened to gather initial community commentary on the scope and content of the proposal stemming from issues and scenarios identified in 427, NP207, and NP228.

This consultation is expected to cover:

• Standards relating to CDR participant representation in the consent model, specifically the authorisation flow and data holder dashboards. Options may include references to the brandName and/or softwareProductName in these locations.
• Options progressing from NP228 in relation to software product adoption and naming implications for various sharing models.
• Additional fields to pass metadata that can be used to facilitate authorisation management, including for various access arrangement models, concurrent consents, and based on a range of ways that software products may be used.

This decision proposal is expected to be published in the new year and will not impact current Feb 2022 timelines or obligations. The DSB encourages community feedback on the identified issues and the areas identified above.

[perlboy]

This thread has no momentum, is this an active consultation?

[CDR-CX-Stream]

This is a placeholder that has been paused until there is further progress on the v5 rules, which may deal with related issues.

NP276 is expected to outline impacts from the v5 rules, after which time DP229 can progress.

In the meantime, we welcome views on the preliminary points in the original post, as well as any changes to the scope or content of this issue in relation to the draft v5 rules (including any analysis stemming from this comment).

[perlboy]

Ok but this isn't a noting paper it is a Decision proposal. Perhaps this should be closed and a new thread created once the scope of such a thread is known?

[CDR-CX-Stream]

Apologies, the previous post should have referred to DP229 instead of NP229. It has been edited.

The intention is to revive this thread for the DP229 consultation, pending the v5 rules. The scope and issues are largely expected to remain the same, though new business consumer consents may need to be considered if they are supported. We will however consider the utility of closing this thread in the interim.

[DSB-RT]

What format does this proposal take in the new categories for Standards?

Also, should this be NP 228 or NP 229?

[CDR-CX-Stream]

This is positioned as a decision proposal - the title has been amended to suit. It follows from NP228 but it will be a targeted data standards consultation, whereas NP228 was a guidance paper.

[DSB-RT]

How does this intended process relate to https://github.com/ConsumerDataStandardsAustralia/standards/issues/308?