Re: Housekeeping from today's call

So corrected -- my apologies for misunderstanding, Alan.

	Aleecia

On Feb 8, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:

> Hi Aleecia,
> 
> Just to clarify, the reason I allowed the issue to close was NOT that "I'm no longer interested" --- it was that my technical team were unable to get a spec in the time frame that was requested given limited resources. And hearing no clamor to even address the issue in Brussels, it seemed (to me at least) that the appropriate course of action was to allow the issue to close – at least for now.
> 
> I apologize if I had given you an impression of disinterest.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alan Chapell
> Chapell & Associates
> 917 318 8440
> 
> 
> From: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:42:11 -0500
> To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Cc: <team-tracking-editors@w3.org>
> Subject: Housekeeping from today's call
> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:42:46 +0000
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> I am summarizing from the call today. This is mostly of use for compliance editors and Matthias. I also want to give everyone the opportunity to make sure I haven't missed anything or mixed anything up. 
> 
> Thank you to Jeff (& Nick) for keeping up with this today! I would have been lost without good minutes.
> 
> 	Action-1: re-assigning to Rigo to take a look, with Shane's suggestion that a list of links might suffice. 
> 	Action-67, Action-68 are in active discussion on the list; these should be good to discuss next call. 
> 	Action-80, Action-99, Action-91, Action-109: all very close to completion. I've arbitrarily re-set these as due Monday. 
> 	Action-92: closed, Alan's no longer interested. However, the underlying issue-113 does still have supporters, which resulted in action-120 for Nick & Shane to see if they can address this with their existing site-specific proposal, and will also be covered by action-91. 
> 	Action-93: will go to the mailing list today
> 	Action-106: text went out today; action is now pending review 
> 	Action-107: Amy volunteered to take this from Peter; after the call Peter said he would be able to get to it this week. Suggest they work together, along with MeMe.
> 	Action-116: Tom is still working on this. Added a week, noted extension in the action item.
> 	Action-48: additional text still to come from Amy; should discuss next week
> 
> 	Issue-57: Aleecia raised that "opt back in" language will not work in EU, perhaps instead "treated as DNT:1" or something similar. We discussed a notion that a specific consent overrides a general opt-out which would be great non-normative text to add. This becomes action-121 for Shane to update the text, and then we appear ready to close issue-57 on the next call.
> 	Issue-36: closed, as is action-63. If Shane has suggestions for the editors on where Tom's text should live in the preamble, that would be helpful; otherwise they will just do something reasonable.
> 	Issue-74, closed: as per suggestion of Kathy and Alex, this is a subset of other open issues.
> 
> 	Action-57 / issue-28: editors to please add three things to the document:
> 		- Open with Amy's text of "This specification is not intended to override applicable laws and regulations."
> 		- Justin's text of "A party MAY take action contrary to the requirements of this standard if compelled by applicable law. If compelled by applicable law to collect, retain, or transmit data despite receiving a DNT:1 signal for which there is no exception or exemption, the party SHOULD notify affected users to the extent practical and allowed by law." plus a note that we are actively discussing if that final SHOULD ought to be a MUST
> 		- Address David Singer's concern by adding a sentence that contracts do not count as "legally compelled" 
> 
> 		Once we have this in one place, we still have the disagreement on SHOULD v. MUST before we close issue-28, but I think we can take that up again after we get the next draft published.
> 
> 	Action-84: closed. It looks like we now understand Shane's use case of wanting to know if a given user agent supports DNT, but requiring sending DNT:NULL is a painful way to address it. This will live in the TPE spec. Nick took action-122 to see if he can address the use case via JS. I took a stab at phrasing this in issue-125; Shane, please correct it if I failed to capture things correctly. 
> 	
> 	Action-65: closed. Quite a lot of agreement. With the caveat that Jeff may come back with additional concerns from NGOs, we seem to be converging that zip plus 4 is too granular without specific consent, identifying by country may actually be necessary for DNT since regulations vary, and the question is where to draw a line in between. Postal codes are international and should serve as a good middle ground. Editors to please add to the document:
> 		- Tom's text from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Feb/0081.html
> 		- Update to add that geo-location more granular than zip code is too granular
> 		- Update to add that if there is a specific consent for more granular location data, that prevails 
> 	No doubt we will have further discussions once we look at the next round of text, so the action is closed but the underlying issue-39 remains open.
> 
> 	Aleecia