Re: Agenda for 12 September 2012 call

Apologies, I'll be dialing in a little late today, likely around 12:30/12:45.

On Sep 11, 2012, at 2:31 PM, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <<>> wrote:

Chair: Aleecia
Main topic: We will be walking through the status of a number of proposals. Expect more a focus on shared understanding than decisions for this call.


1.  Selection of scribe

Old business

2.   Review of overdue action items:

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 this 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."
                  * Initial text from David Wainberg, action-246 of a general nature. Still waiting for a concrete text proposal of exactly what he has in mind.
                  * Silence

          - Issue-49,
STATUS: Awaiting text from Shane, action-161
  (We mistakenly left this as pending review without a new due date, so it dropped out of sight. Sept 12 is the first point I'll consider action-161 overdue.)
- 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.

          - Action-208 on issue-148
STATUS: Agreed; waiting for Heather to add to Compliance document (action-251) and then we close action-208, action-250, action-251, and issue-148.
We resolve to add normative text of: "When a user sends the DNT:0 signal, they are expressing a preference for a personalized experience. This signal indicates explicit consent for data collection, retention, processing, disclosure, and use by the recipient of this signal to provide a personalized experience for the user. This recommendation places no restrictions on data collected from requests received with DNT:0."
Plus additional non-normative text of: "This protocol does not define what constitutes explicit consent in any jurisdiction; check with your lawyer."

- Specify "absolutely not tracking" (ISSUE-119)
We ended with a general sense that "not tracking" is the wrong way to phrase this, and that we will want some non-normative text explaining this is not expected to have wide adoption. Three general directions came out of the discussion, which ended for lack of time:
We have the original text,, which no one stepped forward to update.
Action-252, Nick to reframe via permitted uses
Action-253, David Wainberg prefers dropping this all together, including the flag in the TPE, and will write that up

New business

5. New business

(a) Status on editors' working draft

(b) Summary from Nick on Permitted Uses (action-235)
Discussion of next steps

(c) 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.

(d) Status on tri-part state

(e) Discussion of the difference between "data append" and (action-229) other interactions already covered by third parties and service providers.

(f) Specify "absolutely not tracking" (ISSUE-119)
ACTION-110 on Ninja Marnau: Write proposal text for what it means to "not track"
Counter-proposal from Roy:
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"

(g) 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.


6.  Announce next meeting & adjourn

================ Infrastructure =================

Zakim teleconference bridge:
Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225)
IRC Chat:<>, port 6665, #dnt


Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 15:26:11 UTC