W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > March 2013

DNT: Agenda for March 20 call

From: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:35:30 -0700
To: "<public-tracking@w3.org> Working Group" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD6E0B66.730C8%peter@peterswire.net>

Wednesday call March 20, 2013

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

Chair:  Peter Swire
---------------------------

1.  Confirmation of scribe – glad to accept volunteer in advance

2.  Offline-caller-identification:
If you intend to join the phone call, you must either associate your phone number with your IRC username once you've joined the call (command: "Zakim, [ID] is [name]" e.g., "Zakim, ??P19 is schunter" in my case), or let Nick know your phone number ahead of  time. If you are not comfortable with the Zakim IRC syntax for associating your phone number, please email your name and phone number to npdoty@w3.org<mailto:npdoty@w3.org>. We want to reduce (in fact, eliminate) the time spent on the call identifying phone numbers. Note that if your number is not identified and you do not respond to off-the-phone reminders via IRC, you will be dropped from the call.

3.  Update on next face-to-face on May 6 to 8 near San Francisco.

---------------------------
Compliance Spec: Peter Swire
---------------------------

 4.  Process for developing agenda for a Wednesday discussion of user education and user interface.  Likely call on the topic for April 10, with initial proposed agenda items by the end of March.

5.   Compliance spec procedure: “pending review” and “closed” issues.  Numerous people have highlighted the dependencies within the compliance spec – willingness to reach agreement on one issue depends on the resolution of other issues.  In light of the relative difficulty of stakeholders agreeing that an issue is actually “closed,” the Chair’s proposed idea is to have “pending review” mean roughly “the text is stable and there is no other specific text on the table, so it would require an affirmative proposal that gains significant support for the issue to be brought up again for discussion.”  Assuming that we go forward with this approach, the editors would work on a new public draft, with clear labeling of what issues are closed, pending review, open, or raised.

6.  ISSUE-25, Audience Measurement.  Kathy Joe and her group have submitted a substantially revised proposal for audience measurement.  In addition, we have provided an attached document that collects prior text and links about market research, as well as the DAA text.

7.  ACTION-371: De-identification.  There has been considerable traffic on the list about this topic.  Dan Auerbach has drafted text.

8.  ACTION-372, service providers and debugging.  David Wainberg has submitted text, with Jonathan Mayer comments on the list.  Nick – please open an ISSUE for this.

9.  ACTION-373, append.  John Simpson has proposed text.  Aleecia MacDonald has said her text will be ready for next week’s call.

---------------------------
TPE: Matthias Schunter
---------------------------

10.   We will aim to hold time this week so Matthias can begin addressing these issues:

ISSUE-112:
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/112
- During the face2face we agreed to use cookie-like matching rules for
sub-domains
   The goal is to re-use the cookie matchingenging in the UA
- Question: Do we need any changes to the spec? If yes, who volunteers
to do/propose those changes?

ISSUE-163:
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/163
- We discussed that sites who do not follow the DNT preference
   for some (unspecified) reason can signal so using "!".
   Examples include testing, technical problems, or any other reason.
- David proposed corresponding text in ACTION-366
- I would like to gather feedback on this text
   and understand whether it is OK to introduce this text into the spec.

ISSUE-137:
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/137
- We had disagreement whether a service provider MUST signal its
presence or not.
- David (ACTION-357) suggested that this debate is no longer applicable
and that the concerns have been resolved:
   http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/357
- I would like to gather feedback on this text and understand whether
people agree with David.

ISSUE-164: To what extent should the "same-party" attribute of tracking
status resource be required
   http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/164
  Rigo proposed text:
  http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/258
I would like to gather feedback and understand whether we can move
forward based on this text.

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

Preview of March 27 call

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

11.  In the first half hour of next week’s call, we will have Rena Mears and another expert brief us on issues related to the financial auditing permitted use.  Until recently Rena was the global lead of the Privacy and Data Protection group at Deloitte and Touche.  For the compliance discussion, likely discussion of append, among other issues.

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

12.  Announce next meeting & adjourn


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

Zakim teleconference bridge:
VoIP:    sip:zakim@voip.w3.org<file://localhost/sip/zakim@voip.w3.org>
Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225)
IRC Chat: irc.w3.org<http://irc.w3.org/>, port 6665, #dnt

****


Professor Peter P. Swire
C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
    Ohio State University
240.994.4142
www.peterswire.net









Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2013 16:36:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:07 UTC