W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-p3p-spec@w3.org > December 2003

MINUTES 03 December 2003 P3P Specification Call

From: Stampley, David A <David_Stampley@reyrey.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:03:18 -0500
Message-ID: <E8D4EE6BF5F18243A242B376BE0FA53F02A08931@oh18ex04.reyrey.com>
To: public-p3p-spec <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>
(Subject to amendment)

Attendees:  Brooks Dobbs, Jeff Edelen, Brooks Dobbs, Giles Hogben, Patrick
Hung, Dave Stampley, Rigo Wenning

1.      Article 10.  

1.1.   Rigo:  Intent was to make P3P compliant w/Art 10 so you can
automatically notify users of data collection w/P3P, to satisfy requirements
of art 10.  Giles had exchanges w/Art 29 working party.  

1.2.   Giles.  Points raised were:

1.2.1.      Purpose specification

1.2.2.      Ability to specify jurisdiction

1.2.3.      Point at which cookies must be evaluated

1.3.   Giles:  The ITF secretariat asked Giles H to keep them informed about
any further steps to be taken.  "It is not the intention of the ITF to give
the green light to every action taken, but rather to be informed and to
intervene if necessary."  This is a positive response.

1.4.   Giles proposes closing this phase of issue.  

1.5.   Rigo:  We have no primary purpose spec yet.  We have only
"current"... context specific.  It would be good to come up with a list of
15 primary purposes that are very common.  

1.6.   Art 10 task force is Giles, Jeff, Dave, and Rigo, to come up with a
set of primary purposes.  Rigo to send first email.

1.7.   Giles takes action item to create wording about legality of
jurisdiction and transfers.

2.      Cookies and agent relationships.  

2.1.   Rigo:  We all agree that from the recipient definition, we have no
same entity and agent distinction.  Issue is multiple to multiple
relationship.  

2.2.   Action:  Giles to document issue and distribute to mailing list so we
can really think about it.  It may be out of scope for 1.1, but I want to
get it into bugzilla and consider whether we delay to version 2. 

2.3.   Rigo to brooks:  Issue is multiple to multiple relationship.  This
isn't new to computer science.  We have to find a way to address that or we
can just leave it as is and say we can't solve now.  Giles:  it's an issue,
but it needs a lot of work.  First steps to tag it... send it to
w3c-p3p-specification@w3.org.  ... all participants are on, so you don't
have to share with the world.  Write the issue down and distribute to
mailing list so we can really think about it.  It may be out of scope for
1.1, but I want to get it into bugzilla and consider whether we delay to
version 2.... se how it works out with epal, etc.  I want it on the table.
It touches existing business models and it's a serious issue.  Touches
implementability of p3p.  Brooks:  okay.  Rigo:  when mature and not
company-sensitive, 

3.      English language wording of "courts" and "law"

3.1.   Dave proposes:  "We will compensate individuals if it is determined
that we have violated our privacy policy."

4.      General agreement.  Dave to send wording with minutes. 
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2003 11:04:03 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 17 March 2004 17:46:29 EST