W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2012

RE: Agenda for 2012-Feb-14 call

From: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:06:23 +0000
To: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DB4282D9ADFE2A4EA9D1C0FB54BC3BD76E4D6A4E@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Let us know when you get a location in DC.


From: Aleecia M. McDonald [mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:00 AM
To: public-tracking@w3.org Group WG
Subject: Agenda for 2012-Feb-14 call

Reminder: face-to-face meeting dates are April 10, 11, 12 in Washington, DC.

It looks like I never actually sent the agenda for the call we had yesterday. I did enter the agenda in IRC so it will, at least, be in the minutes for the call. What follows is an annotated version that I used while going through the call, so a little different from what I had originally drafted. I cannot imagine it is of interest to anyone now, but in the interest of completeness, here's what I had in the wrong (unsent) window.

Chair:              Aleecia
Main topic:      Pending review items for Compliance & Definitions document


1. Selection of scribe

2. Any comments on minutes:
            Belgium, first day, 24 January: http://www.w3.org/2012/01/24-dnt-minutes.html

Old business

3.  Review of overdue action items:
            Action-47: defer until after SPWD on "best practices" for issue-115
            Action-68: defer until after SPWD on targeting based on registration information
            Action-79 -- status, please?
            Action-82 -- status, please?
            Action-91 -- status, please?
            Action-93: defer until after SPWD on "best practices" for issue-115
            Action-104: thanks, Peter; holding exceptions until after SPWD
            Action-109: defer until after SPWD on targeting based on registration information
            Action-112 -- status, please? (perhaps should not have gone in group actions)

New business
4. Next face-to-face meeting, 10 - 12 April in Washington, DC

5. Discussion of timeline to get the Second Public Working Draft published
            - Aleecia to get draft to editors tonight
            - editors to meet to turn into a document tomorrow
            - draft for group review on Monday, looking for "cannot live with" sections for quick triage on phone, like in SC

Potentially useful URL: the current working draft <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html>

6. Discussion of pending review items
            We will be making our way through as many as time allows, looking to differentiate those we can reach consensus on quickly from those that need additional proposals to go into the next public working draft. Our goal is to get the draft out, not to solve all open issues.
            See http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/agenda for a usefully formatted list (scroll down)

            Issue-14, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jan/0358.html -- no objections on mailing list. Ask editors to include, adding a note it migrate to the section on national issues.
                        Note: EU difference with contracts. -- fold in as discussion, as well. Evolving discussion in US as well.
            Issue-101, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Feb/0177.html -- no discussion on mailing list, add?
                        change t
                        Close 101.
            Issue-25, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Feb/0354.html -- Can we add discussion of what a reasonable time frame is?
                                    Kathy to review with her team on reasonable period, and add.
                                    Action: Kathy to revise
            Issue-21, http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/21 -- Kevin's proposal had no support. Would anyone like to try again, or do we close this as something we will not take on?
                                    Action: Kevin to draft. KevinT, Chapell, Jchester2, Alex, Laurengelman, due in three weeks.
            Issue-45 / Action-61, conflicting texts. Is a response header *required* as per work from Tom on the header response, or is it "if you send a response header of this format, you attest that you follow the W3C standard for DNT"?
                        - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jan/0266.html
                        - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Feb/0001.html
                        Come back to this after Roy/Tom proposals resolved for DNT doc.
            Issue-10, what is a first party? Suggestion of modifying existing text, plus new issue created that captures current discussion


7. Announce next meeting & adjourn

================ 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
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 21:07:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:34 UTC