W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > May 2014

Re: Agenda for May 14 TPWG call

From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 17:17:53 +0200
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-id: <E6029AEA-F2AC-4C27-B017-6DFC9947FE4F@mac.com>
To: Ninja Marnau <ninja@w3.org>
My apologies, I am at a standards meeting in Europe.

On May 12, 2014, at 23:38 , Ninja Marnau <ninja@w3.org> wrote:

> AGENDA: 
> ---------------------------------- 
> 
> 1. Confirmation of scribe. Volunteers welcome! 
> 
> 2. Offline-caller-identification (see end for instructions) 
> 
> ---------------------------------- 
> --- Issues for this Call --- 
> 
> 3. Disregard signal
> 
> ISSUE-207: Conditions for dis-regarding (or not) DNT signals 
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/207 
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Disregarding 
> May 14: M3 (announcement): Call for objections to validate / determine consensus 
> 
> 4. Short term data collection
> 
> ISSUE-134: Would we additionally permit logs that are retained for a short enough period?
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/134
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Short_Term

This was linked in email to the Unknowing Collection Wiki, though the text shown is correct

> May 14: M2 (discussion): List of change proposals is frozen; Discussion whether clear consensus emerges for one change proposal 
> 
> 5. User agent compliance
> We take up the topic of user agent compliance as a cluster of closely related issues:
> 
> ISSUE-205: User agent compliance requirements; connections to TPE
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/205
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_User_Agent_Compliance
> +
> ISSUE-227: User Agent requirements in UA Compliance vs. Scope section
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/227
> +
> ISSUE-194: How should we ensure consent of users for DNT inputs?
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/194
> +
> ISSUE-172: How should user agents be required to provide information about DNT?
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/172
> +
> ISSUE-132: Should the spec speak to intermediaries or hosting providers to modify any responses/statements about DNT compliance?
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/132
> +
> ISSUE-177: Should we specify compliance requirements for software and hardware other than user agents? For example, is a web server package compliant if it tweaks DNT headers?
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/177
> 
> May 14: M2 (discussion): List of change proposals is frozen; Discussion whether clear consensus emerges for one change proposal 
> 
> 6. Geolocation
> 
> ISSUE-202: Limitations on geolocation by third parties
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/202
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Geolocation
> May 14: M1 (discussion): Initial change proposals have been submitted; Discussion on change proposals; Call for final list of change proposals 
> 
> 7. Service Providers
> 
> ISSUE-206: Service Provider name and requirements
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/206
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Service_Provider
> May 14: M0 (announcement): Initial call for change proposals; All change proposals should be drafted 
> 
> Together with:
> ISSUE-49: Third party as first party - is a third party that collects data on behalf of the first party treated the same way as the first party?
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/49
> 
> 
> ================ Summary Documentation on Resolving ISSUES ================= 
> 
> PHASES to resolve issues: 
> M0 (announcement): Initial call for change proposals; All change proposals should be drafted 
> M1 (discussion): Initial change proposals have been submitted; Discussion on change proposals; Call for final list of change proposals 
> M2 (discussion): List of change proposals is frozen; Discussion whether clear consensus emerges for one change proposal 
> M3 (announcement): Call for objections to validate / determine consensus 
> M5 (deadline): Deadline for inputs to call for objections (2 weeks after M3); Analysis starts 
> M7 (announcement): Results are announced 
> 
> ================ Infrastructure ================= 
> 
> Zakim teleconference bridge: 
> VoIP: 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 
> 
> 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.

Dave Singer

singer@mac.com
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 15:18:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:22 UTC