Re: Agenda for 16 October 2012 call

Regrets, I won't be on the call owing to midterms. I've completed a couple
assigned ACTIONs and marked them CLOSED. I'll attend to the remainder by
next Wednesday.


On Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Aleecia M. McDonald wrote:

> Apologies that this is very late. I ran into issues with travel and could
> not resend until after landing.  Do not panic -- this is a fairly light
> agenda.
> Chair: Aleecia
> Main topic: Action item review; new issues that do not have action items
> ---------------------------
> Administrative
> ---------------------------
> 1.  Selection of scribe
> ---------------------------
> Old business
> ---------------------------
> 2.   Review of overdue action items:
> We have 55 items listed listed as overdue.
> I believe we should just close this one, ideally with a pointer to a
> summary of the call in the notes field:
> Action-321, Call last week on David's questions, Tom Lowenthal
>  I believe the following action items have progress but are not complete,
> and could usefully have an updated due date or be closed.
> Action-255, financial reporting text, Alan Chapell (original text:
> by conversation that became unproductive. I think Alan plans to
> revise his text based on comments from Nick.)
> Action-246, public commitment text, David Wainberg (revised text:
> /*
> proposes a path we had previously discussed and decided not to pursue, and
> is rather different from the original action as assigned. It also appears
> to violate our charter. */
> Action-301, intermediaries and HTTP headers, Rob van Eijk (descriptive
> text of the problem and possible approaches:
> With no feedback, it is time to draft normative text(s).
> In some cases, texts are on the dlist, but without the action number in
> the subject line to link them to the database. When so, there is some
> housekeeping for the action owners to do (one option: add the URL for the
> text proposal on the dlist into the note field in the action.) In other
> cases, I see no progress on the following actions, and we should check to
> see if there is still interest in addressing them. If not, we close them.
> Action-264, share definition, Amy Colando
> Action-275, reword to avoid "tracking," Nick Doty
> Action-260, update debugging text, Nick Doty
> Action-318, JS window / navigator update, Nick Doty
> Action-319, non-norm 3rd party exceptions without JS, Nick Doty
> Action-284, no altering DNT signal set from UA, Ian Fette
> Action-279, graduated response, Ian Fette
> Action-304, URL re-direction, Ian Fette
> Action-303, defn "visit", Ian Fette
> Action-313, normative text around Adrian's exception proposal, Ian Fette
> Action-266, retention grace period, Ian Fette
> Action-131, use case for mixed first- and third-party interactions, Roy
> Fielding
> Action-258, Propose 'should' for same-party and why, Tom Lowenthal /* This
> action could use a better name */
> Action-302, intermediary requirements, Tom Lowenthal
> Action-263, updated minimization text, Ninja Marnau
> Action-276, financial logging retention, Lou Mastria
> Action-286, DAA text on "unlinkability," Lou Mastria
> Action-285, non-normative text around non-UA software that sets DNT
> headers, Jonathan Mayer
> Action-298, data minimization examples, Jonathan Mayer
> Action-293, graduated response examples, Jonathan Mayer
> Action-315, verify ad associations' use case, Brendan Riordan-Butterworth
> Action-257, prepare text on service provider options, Matthias Schunter
> Action-317, examples on same party, David Singer
> Action-316, when service provider indication is necessary, David Singer
> Action-308, coordinate exceptions text across TPE and Compliance specs,
> David Singer
> Action-307, non-norm text on 119, David Singer
> Action-320, examples on out-of-band consent, David Singer
> Action-282, one DNT header, David Singer
> Action-268, party sync across both documents, David Singer
> Action-249, qualifiers to reflect permissions, sync across both documents,
> David Singer
> Action-291, screen size, Kevin Smith
> Action-295, should v. must, Berin Szoka /* this action could use a better
> title */
> Action-289, define "unlinkable", Rachel Thomas
> Action-287, define "user expectation", Rachel Thomas
> Action-270, DAA text for service providers, Rachel Thomas
> Action-300, service provider option, Heather West
> Action-288, update compliance draft with non-normative "unlinkable" text
> option from Shane, Heather West
> Action-271, update service provider language, Heather West
> Action-251, add DNT:0 defn, Heather West
> Action-212, UA consent to turn on DNT, Shane Wiley /* confused. Created in
> June, listed as dropped in August, yet due in September? */
> Action-306, define "declared" data, Shane Wiley
> Action-280, UA explanatory text & examples, Shane Wiley
> Action-265, update 3.8.1, Shane Wiley
> Action-274, independent use for service providers, Shane Wiley
> Action-314, multi-domain site exceptions, Shane Wiley
> Some of these should be pending review; see agenda item 5.
> ---------------------------
> New business
> ---------------------------
> 3. Quick check that callers are identified
> 4. Raised issues that need actions to proceed
> (if someone takes actions here, we will open the issue; if no one takes
> actions, we close the issue for lack of interest)
>  ISSUE-174 How do we create straightforward compliance for implementers
> retaining data for N weeks or less?
> ISSUE-175 Have an appendix of best practices?
> ISSUE-178 Add "Marketing" to list of permitted uses in Compliance document
> ISSUE-180 Add "advertising" as a Permitted Use in the Compliance Document
> 5.  I believe these actions should shift to pending review, and are ready
> for discussion on this call:
> Action-273, text about multiple first parties, Rob Sherman (text:
> After discussion on the mailing list, I think we have differing views, but
> I did not see any indication Rob wants to change his text. (Yet, perhaps it
> would help to have non-normative text to clarify that a social widget is
> not what we are talking about in this section? There seemed to be confusion
> there on the dlist, and that means there could be confusion from other
> readers too.) Do we have alternative proposals?
> Action-277, text regarding contracts, David Singer (
> Do
> we have alternative proposals? David also suggests editing changes in a
> follow up -- do we need an action against Justin or Heather here?
> Action-267, DAA's 1st/3rd party definitions, Rachael Thomas (
> plus bonus definition of affiliate (
> and Kimon on third parties and control (
> I
> believe at this point that we may have different views on definitions, but
> do not see any indication that Rachael wants to change her text based on
> the discussion. I think that means we have two new alternatives for 1st /
> 3rd party definitions, but perhaps those can be merged with the proposal
> from Shane et al and have fewer options to consider.
> ---------------------------
> 6.  Announce next meeting & adjourn
> ================ Infrastructure =================
> Zakim teleconference bridge:
> VoIP:
> Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225)
> IRC Chat:, port 6665, #dnt
> *****

Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 06:12:13 UTC