June change proposal: public commitment

This is a bit pedantic, but I realize that we nowhere in the draft have
anything related to the public commitment of companies who choose to
abide by DNT. In particular, it is critical that we avoid the pitfalls
of P3P (a complicated story, but we don't want vacuous DNT response
headers in the same way that vacuous P3P policies have developed), and
make crystal clear that sending a response header indicating compliance
really means compliance.

I believe this was related to ISSUE 45. Here's some old text:

*A 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, or any other reasonable means.  This standard
does not require a specific form of "public commitment." *

-- 
Dan Auerbach
Staff Technologist
Electronic Frontier Foundation
dan@eff.org
415 436 9333 x134