- From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:05:01 -0700
- To: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFTK4knKhDsH8__v8U_8V+j9YvHGK8dtvmOhRNxdQeOWQYKkJw@mail.gmail.com>
I think Tom and I may be able to combine our proposals. We'll sync. Jonathan On Wednesday, October 31, 2012, Aleecia M. McDonald wrote: > From the call today: > - there is active discussion but it is not clear that it will change any > of the options below > - Rigo has concerns at the regulatory level, but that seems more like > objections to some proposals, rather than anything that changes the > particular framework of the discussion > - adding a 4th option of silence > - holding off one week since NY and some of DC is without power > > Next up: > - barring surprises we will enter a formal review period for these four > options, starting a week from today, ending two days later > - given how much advance notice everyone has, we should not need a lengthy > time to write up objections. > > Thanks, > Aleecia > > Four current options: > > (0) Silence > > (1) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0612.html which is revised action-246 from David Wainberg > > TPE: Add a required "compliance" field to the tracking status resource > in the TPE, where the value indicates the compliance regime under which > the server is honoring the DNT signal. In 5.5.3 of the TPE: > > / A status-object MUST have a member named /_/compliance/_/that > contains a single compliance mode token//./ > > > TCS: > > /Compliance mode tokens //must be associated with a legislative or > regulatory regime in a relevant jurisdiction, or with a relevant and > established self-regulatory regime./ > (2) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Feb/0001.html which is action-61 from Tom Lowenthal > > The response header is a clear commitment, which comes with all the > associated regulatory consequences. When an organization sends the > response header, they are making a specifically articulated promise > about their conduct in response to this request from this user. > > With a required response header, nothing else is required to satisfy > this issue. > (3) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jan/0266.html which is action-62 from Jonathan Mayer (and possibly Shane) > > Operative text: > A party MUST make a public commitment that it complies with this standard. > > Non-normative discussion: > A "public commitment" may consist of a statement in a privacy policy, a response header, or any other reasonable means. This standard does not require a specific form of "public commitment." > Aleecia > > >
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 18:05:37 UTC