Agenda for 5 September 2012 call

Chair:		Aleecia
Main topic:	We will be finally getting to some issues that have been on prior agendas, plus a few more. If you have prepared for past calls, the new work here is to review the links under (d) for new business. 

---------------------------
Administrative
---------------------------

1. 	Selection of scribe

---------------------------
Old business
---------------------------

2.  	Review of overdue action items:  http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner

3.	Quick check that callers are identified

4.     Any questions on the following quick summary of where we are on issues we've been talking about for the past month, but will not take up on the 5 Sept call:
          - Issue-45, Companies making public commitments with a "regulatory hook" for US legal purposes
		STATUS: waiting on an open action. We will have three proposed resolutions. 
                    * "In order to be in compliance with this specification, a third party must make a public commitment that it complies with this standard. A "public commitment" may consist of a statement in a privacy policy, a response header, a machine-readable tracking status resource at a well-known location, or any other reasonable means." (text Roy can live with since it omits the original final sentence of "This standard does not require a specific form of public commitment," which is no longer correct.)
                  * Awaiting text from David Wainberg, action-246
                  * Silence

          - Issue-123, third parties should be prohibited from acting or representing themselves as first parties
		STATUS: postponed while we work through party definitions 

          - Issue-49,
		STATUS: Awaiting text from Shane, action-161
		  As per http://www.w3.org/2012/08/22-dnt-minutes, Shane was to update this text to reflect third parties acting on behalf of third parties. We mistakenly left this as pending review without a new due date, so it dropped out of sight. It should have been due last week, but I've set it due for 5 Sept with a note to Shane. Since the due date was wrong, he'll have an automatic extra week if he is unable to get this done by the 5th (that is, in 24 hours.)
		- Once texts are complete, we compare them side-by-side
 		- We acknowledged on the Aug 1 call that these proposals are likely to go through the decision process with a call for objections. We need alternatives we can adopt into the document.

          - Issue-64, renamed from "How does site-preference management work with DNT" to "How do we describe non-identifiable data" and set to OPEN, as agreed on the 22 August call. We will need to work through the exact language but agree on the direction here. 
		STATUS: one of many open issues, no longer in limbo as "postponed."

---------------------------
New business
---------------------------

5.	New business

	(a) ACTION-208 on Ian Fette: Draft a definition of DNT:0 expression -- issue-148
	Text under discussion (after a few edits): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0314.html
		Suggestion for addition http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0421.html which may not work: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0428.html
	Counter-proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0313.html

	(b) Specify "absolutely not tracking" (ISSUE-119)
	ACTION-110 on Ninja Marnau: Write proposal text for what it means to "not track"
	Text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Feb/0362.html
	Counter-proposal from Roy: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Feb/0403.html
	Several people suggested changes, mostly "let's call this something other than 'not tracking' please." One suggestion there: "Exceeds the compliance standard and does not collect and retain any data"

	(c) Buried in this discussion (of "absolutely not tracking") was David Singer's attempt to define tracking: "Tracking is the retention or use, after a transaction is complete, of data records that are, or can be, associated with a single user." (I'd append: ", user agent, or device.")   Unlike every other time someone has made the attempt, the one and only reply was in support. Does that mean we can live with this? [Note that issue-5 is currently raised]
	Procedural NOTE: We are going to time box this discussion. After 15 minutes, if we are not having a productive conversation, we will take another five minutes to assign any actions that come out of the discussion at its current state and move on.

       (d) Issue-148, What does DNT:0 mean?
        One text, action-208, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0266.html

        Second text for action-209: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0321.html
        Suggested refinement to text, which seemed acceptable: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0327.html
	Two additional concerns without proposed text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0335.html, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0364.html

         Next steps: we talk through both of these alternatives. Can we find something that satisfies the group by making modifications to one of the texts? If not, are these texts final?

	(e) Issue-25, Possible exemption for research purposes
        In Seattle, this dropped from our list of permitted uses. Research can, of course, always be done with consent. 
        PROPOSAL: we close this issue as outdated.



---------------------------

6. 	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, port 6665, #dnt

*****