Re: June change proposal: public commitment

Based on today's call, Peter has suggested that the editors can re-add language around this to the draft. Iff there is debate, I'll set up issues/change proposals.

Thanks,
Nick

On Jun 26, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Looks like Dan and I spotted the same issue. Nick, feel free to lump our proposals together.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, Dan Auerbach wrote:
> 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