If we are going to talk about "privacy by design", if we're going to discuss whether "SPDY's use of SSL offers a promise of improved privacy on the web", if we're going to do anything at all about privacy,
we need to come to an agreement on what we mean by "privacy", since it was clear to me during previous discussions that TAG members had very different ideas about what the word meant.
And yes, I think it needs separate agenda time to agree that this is the vocabulary we want to use, and if not, which one.
From: Noah Mendelsohn [mailto:nrm@...]
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 8:02 PM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: ashok.malhotra@...; www-tag@... Subject: Re: Privacy Document from IETF
On 5/13/2012 7:10 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> iif we are going to talk about privacy at all, we should review this
> document and either adopt it or propose changes.
If the TAG or some TAG members want to attempt again to focus on privacy,
we can, but for the record, it's noted at  that:
"During 2011, the TAG attempted to frame a broad initiative under the
tentative title "Privacy Friendly Web". A framework for a report  was
prepared but never elaborated. At it's 5 January 2012 F2F meeting, the TAG
agreed not (for the moment) to do a major project on privacy. The TAG may
or may not work on some particular technical issues that might help to
address privacy concerns for the Web."
The specific link to the 5 January discussion is , where there is
recorded a formal:
RESOLUTION: The TAG will not do a major effort on privacy at this point. We
will remove Privacy from the list of active projects.
So, my starting assumption is that we're likely not working on privacy, but
if there is new information (or new perspective on old information), we can