agenda for 8 August 2012 call

Chair:		Aleecia
Main topic:	Continued clean up of small issues and older pending review texts


1. 	Selection of scribe

Old business

2.  	Review of overdue action items:

3.	Quick check that callers are identified

New business

4. 	Update on face-to-face meeting

5.	Compliance draft, sections 5 & 6

6.	Polling on choices offered by UA

7.	A few issues that are candidates to close, plus continuation of the call from last week. 

	(a) ISSUE-21	PENDING REVIEW	Enable external audit of DNT compliance
		PROPOSAL: we have previously agreed upon an optional array of URIs to list any auditors, as included in the TPE document. Let us add a pointer from the Compliance document to the TPE document, and close this issue.

	(b) ISSUE-45	PENDING REVIEW	Companies making public commitments with a "regulatory hook" for US legal purposes
		PROPOSAL: we have previously agreed to the general direction below. Unless someone has new information or cannot live with the text, let us adopt it and close this issue:
		In order to be in compliance with this specification, a third party must make a public commitment that it complies with this standard. A "public commitment" may consist of a statement in a privacy policy, a response header, a machine-readable tracking status resource at a well-known location, or any other reasonable means. This standard does not require a specific form of public commitment.

	(c) ISSUE-64		POSTPONED	How does site-preference management work with DNT	
		See the summary box in the issue ( -- this was about setting cookies that have non-identifiable information, for example, the user's default language. I believe we are unanimous in agreeing this is fine and does not require consent under DNT, provided the pool of users is large enough, though we are not quite agreed on final language, though pretty close.
		PROPOSAL: Move this from "postponed" to "open", and rename to "How do we describe non-identifiable data" to reflect the state of the conversation.

	(d) ACTION-208 on Ian Fette: Draft a definition of DNT:0 expression -- issue-148
	Text under discussion (after a few edits):
		Suggestion for addition which may not work:

	(e) Specify "absolutely not tracking" (ISSUE-119)
ACTION-110 on Ninja Marnau: Write proposal text for what it means to "not track"
Counter-proposal from Roy:
Several people suggested changes, mostly "let's call this something other than 'not tracking' please." One suggestion there: "Exceeds the compliance standard and does not collect and retain any data"

	Buried in this discussion was David Singer's attempt to define tracking: "Tracking is the retention or use, after a transaction is complete, of data records that are, or can be, associated with a single user." (I'd append: ", user agent, or device.")   Unlike every other time someone has made the attempt, the one and only reply was in support. Does that mean we can live with this?


8. 	Announce next meeting & adjourn

================ Infrastructure =================

Zakim teleconference bridge:
Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225)
IRC Chat:, port 6665, #dnt


Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 16:12:06 UTC