...
| Info |
|---|
The document for the consultation is available as a pdf attachment (entity category) and pdf attachment (best practice). All comments should be made on: consultations@lists.refeds.org or added to the changelog below. Comments posted to other lists will not be included in the consultation review. |
Change Log
| comment # | Line/Reference # (please indicate which document is referenced too - e.g. EC line 1, BP line 1) | Proposed Change or Query | Proposer / Affiliation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6 | I find the opening line a little confusing since the service provider may choose to commit to more rules than just the ones in this framework. "This Code of Conduct sets the rules that Service Provider Organisations can commit to when they..." -> I would suggest a slight change to "This Code of Conduct defines a set of rules that…" | Hannah Short/CERN |
| 2 | General | Since the Code of Conduct is really about expressing compliance with GDPR I wonder whether the title of the entity category and framework shouldn't be clearer and refer to the fact that it's about GDPR and not a more general Code of Conduct? | Hannah Short/CERN |
| 3 | EC - 80 | "the registrar MUST at least: ... 7. Ensure they have an appropriate administrative contact that is aware of the Service Provider’s commitment to the Code of Conduct." "they" points to the registrar. Is it the intent the registrar has an administrative contact? | Niels van Dijk (SURF) |
| 4 | EC - 66/77 | What if the "check" fails? What is the difference between "ensure" and "check"? | Niels van Dijk (SURF) |
| 5 | EC 62 | Does a RA have the right to revoke registration? If so should that be mention in the document? | Niels van Dijk (SURF) |
| 6 | EC 74 | Explicitly reference chapter 5 here? | Niels van Dijk (SURF) |
| 7 | EC 74/77/87 | If registration criteria #3 already mandates accordance with 5.5.1, why is registration criteria #5 still needed? | Niels van Dijk (SURF) |
| 8 |