[WG-InfoSharing] Tomorrow's ISI agenda

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Jim Pasquale

unread,
Sep 30, 2020, 10:47:55 AM9/30/20
to Information Sharing Work Group
Hope Everyone is having a productive day.

With Tomorrow being the end of month, we typically have the meeting blocked out for project status and review discussions.  However, and since we are seriously lagging behind on all the projects and with both John and Iain not available tomorrow.  The only two projects to talk about are Notice & Consent and the Personal Data Use Receipt Framework.

This will be the last time projects will excuse for not providing status and review.  According to John’s minutes and the motion to require a surrogate person to update the main WG, being carried. It is the responsibility of each project leader to define such a representative providing them with all the materials to speak to the larger group.  


Please visit the page 


Also note: Review Lisa LeVasseur (LLV) Comments in the draft PDURF report for additional observations, which will give everyone an excellent opportunity to review the report making your own comments. 

Thanks, and we’ll see you on the call. 







Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorised to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and advise the sender.

.

Jim Pasquale

unread,
Sep 30, 2020, 2:24:00 PM9/30/20
to Information Sharing Work Group
Seems as though I’m running a bit behind here everyone. Having missed last weeks’ call I completely forgot this week 10/1 isn’t the last call of the month.  Therefore tomorrow’s agenda will be update shortly and will cover comments to the PDURF draft  in two ways as noted by John.

1. Comments that need to be incorporated for inclusion in Andrew's suggested route;
2. Comments that belong to the more substantial discussion of the alternate route.

My apologies for the misleading with mis-information.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages