W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > June 2013

Re: List of order of topics for discussion today on the call (version 2)

From: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:14:48 -0700
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F1B50485-654E-49FE-8FE8-17E24FF3ACD7@consumerwatchdog.org>
To: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>
I also offered security and fraud language…


On Jun 26, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net> wrote:

> More proof that I make mistakes sometimes.
> 
> I intended to have definition of security/fraud permitted use in the list.  Please make that 12B.
> 
> Chris Mejia proposed it but will not be on the call, I understand.  If someone else who works with Chris can explain the proposal, then please volunteer.
> 
> I know there was various response to this on the list, but don't remember precisely who wrote what.
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> Prof. Peter P. Swire
> C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
> 	Ohio State University
> 240.994.4142
> www.peterswire.net
> 
> Beginning August 2013:
> Nancy J. and Lawrence P. Huang Professor
> Law and Ethics Program
> Scheller College of Business
> Georgia Institute of Technology
> 
> 
> From: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>
> Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:43 AM
> To: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: List of order of topics for discussion today on the call
> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:44 AM
> 
> To the group:
>  
>             Big thanks to the hard work so many members of the group have put into this process, from long before I came on board and once again in the comments on the June draft.
>  
>             We begin our call at noon eastern today, and will continue for between 90 and 120 minutes.  A main goal is for all of us to get a better understanding of the change proposals that have been submitted.  Talking through these, concisely and clearly, is the best way I know for us to understand where things stand.
>  
>             Below you will find my best effort to categorize and list the proposals that have arrived thus far.  I ask your consideration for any mistakes or bad phrasing about these proposals -- I’m trying to provide clarity in real time, and my own understanding is developing along with yours.
>  
>             For each item, we will have those who have submitted text speak briefly (think one minute each) to give the main idea of what is happening.  Where the issue is well understood, because we have discussed it at length previously, then I may ask you to affirm that it is the same as a previous proposal and no need to discuss at length.
> 
> Two areas may receive longer discussion, reflecting the level of activity on the list – audience measurement and de-identification.  I have placed these last, to give them more time if we have such time remaining after moving through the rest of the issues.
>  
>             We will begin promptly today, and move systematically and with a professional tone through the explanations of proposed changes from the June Draft.  We will then discuss next steps.
>  
>             As an aid to the group, perhaps the speaker (or a W3C staffer) can have the URL for each proposal ready when we get to that issue in the list?
>  
>             1. Public commitment:  I believe this may be more editorial, as an omission from the June draft.  We will separately circulate emails about editorial changes for everyone’s review.
>  
>       2. Geolocation. David Singer.
>  
>             3.  Definition of first party.  Lee Tien and affiliates.  Chris Pedigo on disclosure mechanism about affiliates.  Amy Colando on list of affiliates. 
>  
>             4.  Don’t use in 3d party context what was collected in 1st party context. Alan Chapell.  John Simpson.
>            
>             5.  Append.  John Simpson.
>  
>             6. Service providers.  Roy Fielding.  Dan Auerbach.
>  
>             7. Third party compliance
>             Amy Colando.  What is technically feasible; auditing is internally verifiable.
>  
>       8.  Definition of tracking. David Singer. Roy Fielding. Amy Colando. John Simpson. Jonathan Mayer.
>      
>       9. Protocol information and short term use of 2 weeks.  Also, eliminate transient data term.
>       Lee Tien and/or Jonathan Mayer.
>      
>       10.  Definition of collect/retain/share.  Amy Colando. Jonathan Mayer.
>  
>             11.  Definition of user agents.  Chris Pedigo.  Others?
>  
>             12. User agent compliance. Alan Chapell.  Justin Brookman. Amy Colando on existing privacy controls.  Jonathan Mayer on IE.
>  
>             13. Jonathan Mayer made a number of specific proposals on issues not addressed in detailelsewhere.  Five minutes to present these: no partial compliance; meaning of DNT:0; unknowing collection.
>            
>             14.  Aleecia MacDonald submitted an earlier working draft from the group.  Brief presentation of proposal.
>  
>             15.  Audience measurement.  Kathy Joe. Rigo Wenning.
>  
>             16.  De-identification.  Dan Auerbach. David Singer.  Roy Fielding. Shane Wiley.  For this much-debated topic, Dan will have the opportunity to explain his version of the two-stage process. After comments about variations from David and Roy, Shane will present his version of the three-stage process.  (Note – Shane has informed me that he expects to submit a proposal by the noon deadline; if that does not arrive, then we will not discuss it.)
>  
>             Thank you for your hard work and participation.  We will begin shortly.
>  
>             Peter
> ====
> 
> 
> Nick's organizational email last night:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> I know we're all looking through a flood of emails in our inboxes over the last couple of days. Some links that may be useful:
> 
> This wiki page includes a list of the change proposals thus far documented on the wiki:
>    http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG
> 
> Each such proposal (I've been sending out the individual links in replies), includes the proposed text or texts and links to the relevant issue and email proposal. (I'm not entirely caught up as tonight people were sending proposals faster than I could keep up, my apologies, but I want to sleep some before our group call.) I have forwarded some smaller editorial changes directly to the editors, as they have just started making smaller, non-controversial changes to the Compliance language. If I've missed a proposal you made that should be documented with an issue, feel free to remind me directly off-list.
> 
> The Compliance June product in the tracker keeps track of each issue for which we have a change proposal on the Compliance document:
>    http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/5
> 
> Each issue contains a link to the relevant change proposal on the wiki.
> 
> Both of those links are also available from a sidebar on the homepage. Also, Yianni has helped collect into one place the list of background memos on several of these issues which may be helpful for review:
>   http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Background_Memos
> 
> Thanks,
> Nick
> 
> --
> 
> also, a list of June submissions to the group list:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prof. Peter P. Swire
> C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
> Ohio State University
> 240.994.4142
> www.peterswire.net
> 
> Beginning August 2013:
> Nancy J. and Lawrence P. Huang Professor
> Law and Ethics Program
> Scheller College of Business
> Georgia Institute of Technology
> 
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 16:15:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 26 June 2013 16:15:22 UTC