PING - informal chairs summary and next meeting

Informal chairs summary - 23 August 2012

Thanks to Nick for performing as stunt-double scribe when Tara's communications infrastructure failed.

Next call on 20 September 2012 (same time: 9am PT, 12pm ET, 16 UTC, 6pm CET)
--------

This call focused primarily on how we might make concrete progress on the Privacy Considerations guidance document.
The majority of the call consisted of open discussion about how  privacy considerations could (and could not) be taken into account in W3C specifications.

Nick suggested that work might begin by using specific topics, such as data minimization, as a way of generating activity, particularly given the diverse needs and approaches of the various working groups. Hannes described the related work in the IAB, pointing out how this involved the review of various protocols, cautioning that this process was lengthy and that what worked for the IAB might not always work for the W3C.

Rigo proposed that there are two major directions for this initiative, a sort of "bottom up" versus "top-down" approach. The former would be to review existing and developing specifications to identify privacy implications that emerge from technical aspects, and try to generalize from there. The latter is to create high-level privacy guidance to inform specification development, and then evaluate how well the specification adheres to that guidance. Rigo favours the bottom-up approach, due to its pragmatic strengths, and highlighted that there are currently at least a dozen specs under development (such as geolocation).

Rigo also proposed inviting other W3C WGs to join PING calls to discuss any privacy issues that may have arisen in relation to their work. Christine pointed out that this is the type of work that PING has already been doing, with involvement from multiple working groups to date.

Nick proposed that a workshop may be a means for moving this work forward, as a forum for discussion. Further, neither a purely top-down nor bottom-up model is likely to be effective, particularly given the gulf between technologists and privacy regulators. A few participants on the call (e.g., Kasey, Tara) who had knowledge in this particular area offered to help out, and there was general support for exploring these regulatory-plus-technical concerns further.

In summary, participation in how PING privacy guidance should proceed was enthusiastic and productive, with further discussion anticipated (and encouraged) on the PING mailing list.

* Due to time constraints:

-       the reports on work in OECD, APEC, UNESCO, UNECA/AU;

were deferred to the next call.

Christine and Tara