W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2014

Re: Agenda for January 29, 2014, ISSUE-25

From: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:51:03 -0500
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0D755F96-CCA7-45A8-9E29-B59A7E523AC2@cdt.org>
To: "Kathy Joe" <kathy@esomar.org>
Slight correction: Nick has proposed reintroducing the functional status representations under ISSUE-241 (including an "m" for audience measurement).  We will discuss today.

https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_elements_for_1and3_party_use

On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org> wrote:

> As I understand it, the tracking status representations have already been significantly changed due to the delinking from the TCS document, at least in Roy's proposed edit.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#status-representation
> 
> The document no longer includes values for "frequency capping," "audience measurement" and the like, as the permitted uses may change from compliance regime to compliance regime.  Instead, Roy has proposed the link to the overall compliance regime.
> 
> Others please correct me if I am misrepresenting.
> 
> Justin Brookman
> Director, Consumer Privacy
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> tel 202.407.8812
> justin@cdt.org
> http://www.cdt.org
> @JustinBrookman
> @CenDemTech
> 
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:37 AM, "Kathy Joe" <kathy@esomar.org> wrote:
> 
>> Removing m for audience measurement will remove the possibility of audience measurement being catered for as a permitted use in the TPE before concluding the discussion about permitted uses.
>> The proposed text does not port TCS decisions about permitted uses into the TPE, as these may be defined by the compliance regime, but simply provides a technical solution for this to be possible:
>> “While different compliance regimes can define requirements and uses of certain qualifiers, and a particular compliance regime may not require the use of qualifiers for particular activities to be permitted, the following qualifiers have the defined, descriptive meanings.”
>> Regards
>> Kathy Joe 
>> From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
>> To: Ninja Marnau [mailto:ninja@w3.org]
>> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
>> Sent: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:05:19 +0100
>> Subject: Re: Agenda for January 29, 2014
>> 
>> 
>> We should discuss whether or not to solve audience measurement before 
>> the TPE goes to last call.
>> 
>> I argue against solving the outstanding issue(s), and as a consequence 
>> delete the "m" response from the TPE and relax the burden for the TPE to 
>> go to Last Call.
>> 
>> I respectfully ask to open an issue for this matter.
>> 
>> Rob
>> 
>> Ninja Marnau schreef op 2014-01-28 20:33:
>> > This week, the co-chairs will talk about the advancement of the TPE
>> > spec to Last Call and the steps the group needs to take.
>> > We have narrowed down the remaining ISSUES and will probably proceed
>> > to Call for Objections within the next two weeks. Therefore, the
>> > co-chairs will start to take up ISSUES from the Compliance spec in
>> > February.
>> > 
>> > Regards,
>> > Ninja
>> > 
>> > ----------------------------------
>> > 
>> > 1. Confirmation of scribe. Volunteers welcome!
>> > 
>> > 2. Offline-caller-identification (see end for instructions)
>> > 
>> > ----------------------------------
>> > --- Issues for this Call ---
>> > 
>> > Note: See more info at the end for details.
>> > 
>> > ISSUE-217 and ISSUE-228: Definition of network interaction
>> > https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-interact-217/results
>> > January 29: M7 (announcement): Results are announced
>> > 
>> > Announcement: Getting closer to Last Call
>> > http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
>> > 
>> > ISSUE-240: Do we need to define context?
>> > https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/240
>> > http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_the_definition_of_context
>> > January 29: M2 (discussion): List of change proposals is frozen;
>> > Discussion whether clear consensus emerges for one change proposal
>> > February 5: M3 (announcement): Call for objections to validate /
>> > determine consensus
>> > 
>> > ISSUE-241: Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements
>> > that can be re-used by others (1/3)
>> > https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/241
>> > https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_elements_for_1and3_party_use
>> > 
>> > January 29: M1 (discussion): Initial change proposals have been
>> > submitted; Discussion on change proposals; Call for final list of
>> > change proposals
>> > February 5: M2 (discussion): List of change proposals is frozen;
>> > Discussion whether clear consensus emerges for one change proposal
>> > 
>> > AoB
>> > 
>> > Reminder for open Call for Objection:
>> > 
>> > ISSUE-153: Limitations for add-ons
>> > https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-addons-153/
>> > Deadline - January 29
>> > 
>> > ================ Summary Documentation on Resolving ISSUES 
>> > =================
>> > 
>> > PHASES to resolve issues:
>> > M0 (announcement): Initial call for change proposals; All change
>> > proposals should be drafted
>> > M1 (discussion): Initial change proposals have been submitted;
>> > Discussion on change proposals; Call for final list of change
>> > proposals
>> > M2 (discussion): List of change proposals is frozen; Discussion
>> > whether clear consensus emerges for one change proposal
>> > M3 (announcement): Call for objections to validate / determine 
>> > consensus
>> > M5 (deadline): Deadline for inputs to call for objections (2 weeks
>> > after M3); Analysis starts
>> > M7 (announcement): Results are announced
>> > 
>> > STATUS of the ISSUES:
>> > - OPEN During phases M0, M1, M2
>> > - PENDING REVIEW: During phases M3, M5
>> > - CLOSED after M7
>> > All other issues are RAISED.
>> > -----
>> > ================ Infrastructure =================
>> > 
>> > Zakim teleconference bridge:
>> > VoIP: sip:zakim@voip.w3.org
>> > Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225)
>> > IRC Chat: irc.w3.org<http://irc.w3.org/>, port 6665, #dnt
>> > 
>> > OFFLINE caller identification:
>> > If you intend to join the phone call, you must either associate your
>> > phone number with your IRC username once you've joined the call
>> > (command: "Zakim, [ID] is [name]" e.g., "Zakim, ??P19 is schunter" in 
>> > my
>> > case), or let Nick know your phone number ahead of time. If you are not
>> > comfortable with the Zakim IRC syntax for associating your phone 
>> > number,
>> > please email your name and phone number to
>> > npdoty@w3.org<mailto:npdoty@w3.org>. We want to reduce (in fact,
>> > eliminate) the time spent on the call identifying phone numbers. Note
>> > that if your number is not identified and you do not respond to
>> > off-the-phone reminders via IRC, you will be dropped from the call.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2014 16:51:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:21 UTC