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

MINUTES: 18 September 2003 P3P Specification Call

From: Dobbs, Brooks <bdobbs@doubleclick.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:51:58 -0400
Message-ID: <D464F551A951ED4E804B9713B519E6C9013F72FE@NYC-EX101.doubleclick.net>
To: "'public-p3p-spec@w3.org'" <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>
Cc: "'lorrie@research.att.com'" <lorrie@research.att.com>

Minutes 9/17/2003

Present:
Lorrie Cranor, AT&T
Brooks Dobbs, DoubleClick
Bill Duserick , Fidelity
Jeff Edelmen 	
Rigo Wenning, W3C
David Stampley, Reynolds and Reynolds
Matthias Schunter, IBM

Regrets:
Patrick Hung, 
Ari Schwartz, CDT
Jack Humphrey, Coremetrics 


0. Sydney report from Rigo

Rigo: Overall a great success, however there seems to be reoccurring mention
of the P3P's limitation regarding not being able to point out primary
purposes.

Lorrie: if 1.1 is going to deal with primary purposes, we need someone to
head it up <no name came up>

Lorrie: points out that free text in consequences can be used to address
this but of course this loses the ability to be machine processed.
Lorrie: will the EPAL people helpful here?
ACTION-> Rigo to get a proposal from EPAL on primary purpose.


1. Task force reports
    
NO TASK FORCES REPORTING

2. Approval of Ari's revised identified/identifiable draft

No comments, changes approved.

3. Discuss revised consent/grouping proposal

Rigo: has reservations, but feels current iteration is the most mature.
Lorrie: Looking for comments from developers/Microsoft.
ACTION-> Lorrie to follow up with Jeremy performance issues. 

4. Discussion of disputes definition issues 

Where were we...
Lorrie reminds everyone that we were dealing with the definition of DISPUTES
specifically regarding changing of wording from "may be followed" to" offers
or acknowledges".

David: Do "offers and acknowledgements" encompass a case where a provider is
legally obligated to do something? 

Rigo: Those elements where established to inform the users about their
rights.  The most difficult problem is that people don't know about their
rights.  Can we improve the wording in laws and courts group to say this is
not a binding submission to a law but meant to be informational?

David: Says that that makes sense to him, and feels that the change he
proposes moves towards that.  David feels that "offers or acknowledges" is a
better way of communicating how a user can gain benefit than "may be
followed"

Rigo: "offers and acknowledges" creates a different spin - sounds more like
they got to pick and choose.

David: suggests that we don't want to be in the business of educating a
consumer improperly.  It is not fair to tell a company that it has an
educational requirement.  Don't want to make the company the user's lawyer.


Lorrie: Is the issue here that "may be followed" has multiple possible
interpretations, and is Rigo saying that this is a good thing while; David
thinks this is a bad thing.  Lorrie feels like we shouldn't be wishy washy
here.

Rigo: feels that this will lead to people declaring less

Lorrie: asks for opinions
Brooks: overlawyered
Bill: no opinion
Jeff: not sure that even "offers and acknowledges" completely does away with
ambiguity altogether.  Suggests adding, "although there may be other ways".
Matthias: no opinion

Lorrie: agreed to adopt David's proposal with the above additional 6 words.

Now we move into discussing SERVICE, INDEPENDENT, COURT and LAW

SERVICE

David: First one suffers the problem that the 1st one might lead the user to
the feeling that their option is to call service - when it should say we
aren't telling you what all your options are but one of them is calling
customer service.  Feels that the change encompasses this better.

Rigo: points out question of definition of service provider

Lorrie: Addressing the question of this definition.  Suggests changing
Service Provider, Service or Web Site to Entity for definitions within
DISPUTES.

All agreed that this change should be made.

COURT: 

David suggest removing altogether

Rigo: feels that it should be kept

Lorrie: What can you convey using Court that you can't convey with Law?

Brooks: Court should be inherited from Law and that is not the way it is set
up.

Dave: suggests middle ground, intent is for a site to say "we are willing to
be legally bound by our policy" - but that is not for the site to decide.
They may be bound if they are willing or not.  Companies should not be bound
to educate or to become a users lawyers.  This is about describing their
privacy practices. 

Lorrie: no one is using it and it doesn't buy us much

Lorrie: what if we kept it but said, even if this element is not disclosed,
users may still have this option?

Action David -> David will come up with an alternate definition proposal.


5. Set date for next call (Sept 24?)
Call next week same time.  Rigo taking over working group starting next
week.  Lorrie has decided to have a baby in the very near future.  Lorrie
expects to be back in December.  She is moving to Pittsburgh - timing could
impact when she is back.

  



Brooks Dobbs
DoubleClick 
Director of Privacy Technology
Email: 	bdobbs@doubleclick.net
Office: 	404.995.6634 
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2003 11:52:00 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 17 March 2004 17:46:27 EST