- From: Dobbs, Brooks <bdobbs@doubleclick.net>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:51:58 -0400
- 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 UTC