This is a weekly series for The Regulatory Reporting Data Model Working Group. The RRDMWG is a collaborative group of insurers, regulators and other insurance industry innovators dedicated to the development of data models that will support regulatory reporting through an openIDL node. The data models to be developed will reflect a greater synchronization of data for insurer statistical and financial data and a consistent methodology that insurers and regulators can leverage to modernize the data reporting environment. The models developed will be reported to the Regulatory Reporting Steering Committee for approval for publication as an open-source data model.
openIDL Community is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
One tap mobile +16699006833,,98908804279# US (San Jose) +12532158782,,98908804279# US (Tacoma) Dial by your location +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) 888 788 0099 US Toll-free 877 853 5247 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 989 0880 4279 Find your local number:https://zoom.us/u/aAqJFpt9B
Review any feedback on the proposed Charter and agree on any updates
Approve minutes from last meetingApprove the charter and refer it to the RRSC
Confirm voting members from member & regulatory delegates or adopt a consensus-based model
Peter Antley (AAIS) will provide an update on the Auto stat data model based on last week’s discussions and feedback
Refer to the NAIC handbook for stat reporting guidelines (PDF below)
Review the gap analysis for the current & proposed data dictionaries for Personal Auto
Any other business
View file
name
NAIC Priv Passenger.pdf
height
250
View file
name
PL Auto OpenIDL - AAIS v NAIC.xlsx
height
250
Recording
View file
name
Regulatory Reporting Data Model Working Group._Recording_11_5.mp4
height
150
Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes (scribed by Megan Ebling- thank you!)
Antitrust policy reviewed
Review Charter on Wiki
Rururaj: The last meeting we looked at the data model and it is a very technical construct, we would like to keep this conversation (working group) more business friendly and business
...
Discussion items
...
Action items
centric so, we are going to refer to the data dictionary to get a visual on the relationship.
Dale: Would like to add into the charter that we are only dealing with property and casualty and the end game is all lines of business that require statistical reporting.
Reviewed bullet points of the charter
Draft. Goal: Set the context of these meetings, working group
Working Group Basics: Organization and Voting
(Introductions of the group)
Subcommittee Members:
Dale Harris
Peter Antley
George Bradner
Ryan Blakeney
Truman: Who gets to vote, we need the definition of who’s in the working group that would constitute a quorum.
Ruturaj: With regards to the Chair; we can rotate that so everybody gets to play the chair and contributes and doesn’t just become an overhead for one individual.
Daniela: From the Linux Foundation side, that’s the correct approach.
Ruturaj: We can have a new chair every quarter.
George: Do we have a list of who are the Members of this Working Group now? Just so, we can get a sense of all the people who are apart of this group?
Daniela: I would recommend that we make a call to the list and say, l we would like to create a public right directory of Members. It’s more appropriate to do this on the public mailing list then to share the list here and now.
Dale: Can we make introductions to everyone in this group now?
Daniela: Is anyone opposed to being listed in the regulatory reporting working group directory? I will make a call out for any other individuals that might not be on the call today or on previous calls to let us know if they want to be added.
Truman: Back to the chair part, who is eligible for a nomination?
Dale: We need a more robust charter to define that role of the Chair. I would suggest we have a subcommittee to build out the charter.
Truman: I agree.
Data Model and Data Dictionary:
Peter: We didn’t have company listed on the data model last time so, that was added. Along with type of business and class. Most of the updates that has been done in the last week have actually been under the data dictionary page.
Ruturaj: Want to have an explicit discussion about the company identifiers
Ken: Currently the multi tenant node does not use the company as an identifier.
Truman: Company listed is for operational purposes; the data is completely de identified.
Dale: Thinking of the future—if states start asking for data calls by companies this model will be helpful- a NAIC code would be added as an attributes
Truman: Would like to keep it—attribute as the company would know to help with respect to claims and central objects, creating a broader model
Ruturaji: We’ll give the data dictionary more time and attention—will send out offline updates---leaving ‘company’ in the model would like to know ‘yes’ or ‘no’. We would like to get everyone together to vote the model.
Action items
Daniela to reach out to mailing list about adding themselves to the member list for this WG
Charter Sub-Committee to be formed and meet outside working group meetings, to present charter
Peter to analyze the Company entity and kick off the next meeting with his alternative view
