Re: Agenda for 16 October 2012 call

Just to avoid any confusion: I assume Aleecia simply mis-typed the date in
the subject line of this email, and that our call is on for today, October
17, as per our usual Wednesday schedule.


On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald

> 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
> *****

Berin Szoka | President, TechFreedom | @TechFreedom | @BerinSzoka

Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 14:49:24 UTC