Hi PETs,
Here is the agenda<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k28yLvoH2MFNJOkMzSNQzgP3ioX5Tn1Mte3REdYzL0E/edit#heading=h.2980s03v44e3> for next week’s DLF-PET meeting. We’ll be hosting our first reading group on the ALA’s vendor privacy checklist<https://www.ala.org/advocacy/privacy/guidelines/vendors>. Please read (or skim) it in advance of the meeting. It’s super short, we promise!
Paige & Andy
Paige Walker
Head of Digital Initiatives, Tisch Library
Tufts University
[log in to unmask]
617-627-6027
she/her/hers
2022-06-15
Present:
Regrets:
I.Question of the day: Do you have any summer vacation or staycation plans? (3 min)
II.Welcome & new member introductions (5 min)
III.Updates, questions, and talking points from group members (10 min)
IV.Email from Jason Griffey/NISO re: seamless access (10 min)
. Questions from PET:
* What is this?
* What is the timeline for this review to be completed? What is the expected time commitment?
* Which other groups, if any, are involved in this review?
* Is there access to previous comments?
* What is the difference between public comments and this round of review? That’s this scope and how does it differ?
A. Answers from Jason:
* SeamlessAccess is trying to put together a Contract Language Toolkit for libraries and service providers to use when Federated Access/Authentication is being used. We did a survey of existing library contracts, and there was basically zero language dedicated to the tech specifics for FedAuth, and there needs to be some standard language available to ensure that libraries hold service providers to the appropriate Attribute release agreements for privacy reasons.
* We had a model contract available for community comment (Seamless Access Model License Language w/Commentary - Shared<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BDkZ2iwnQoCcqbIhTlBQRZo7xAfRPiC_h0a_EZut3o0/edit#heading=h.lkf4fkk6tnn3>), and MANY of the comments are outside the scope of my group’s charge…we’re trying to get the FedAuth language right, and make sure that all of it is good to go for libraries. But we definitely can’t make the contract universally applicable for every possible authentication type, and we’re not set up to do a fine reading of the privacy issues.
* Many of the privacy comments are actually about the Liblicense model contract that we used as our base…not to say they shouldn’t be fixed, but to say that they were inherited.
V.Reading group - ALA Privacy Subcommittee’s vendor checklist<https://www.ala.org/advocacy/privacy/guidelines/vendors> (20 min)
. Questions for discussion:
* Last week, we discussed collaboratively creating a review framework for platforms. How might this document inform that work?
* What areas would need expansion or revision?
* Did anything in this checklist surprise you? What did you like or dislike about it?
VI.Plug for next reading group - NERL Issues a Statement Demanding a Better Deal<https://nerl.org/2021/03/03/nerl-issues-a-statement-demanding-a-better-deal/> (2 min)
VII.Any ideas or leaders for the August meeting? (10 min)
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the DLF-SURVEILLANCE-TECH list, click the following link:
https://lists.clir.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=DLF-SURVEILLANCE-TECH
