W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2012

Re: multi-stakeholder participation (was Re: Deciding Exceptions....)

From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:41:31 -0500
To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CB580168.1398F%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Thanks Nick. Yes  I'd be happy to work with you and others to brainstorm on
ways to ensure we're obtaining as wide a spectrum of input as practicable.


From:  Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Date:  Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:24:37 -0800
To:  Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Cc:  "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)"
<public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: multi-stakeholder participation (was Re: Deciding
Exceptions....)
Resent-From:  <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:26:38 +0000

Hi Alan,

On Feb 7, 2012, at 5:34 AM, Alan Chapell wrote:

> So rather than focus on those, I'll merely point out that no one on this
> thread has even entertained the concept of having invited experts from the
> long tail of industry. Regardless of the requirements imposed on first
> parties, when 60 pages of documents appear on the desks of the technology
> leads who are not Adobe or MSFT  it will create pretty significant
> indigestion. While publisher are part of that equation, there are also a
> number of small to mid sized technology platforms out there that do not have
> the resources of a big company. And while you are one of the smarter people
> that I've come across in recent memory, the idea that you (or anyone) can
> serve as a proxy for how an entire marketplace works smacks of hubris.
> 
> I would hope that advocating a multi-stakeholder approach is a relatively
> uncontroversial idea on this thread - as that seems to be a core philosophy of
> the W3C. It just seems that we have a few holes in terms of perspective when
> it comes to our talented TP group. And I'm sort of curious why I'm the only
> person who feels that wayŠ.(?)

Delayed response here; I've been busy with all my action items and text
proposals.

Broad multi-stakeholder participation for this work is a goal that W3C staff
have put significant effort into over the last nine months. We have actively
called, cajoled and recruited participants from various parts of industry,
academia and civil service. I'd like to think we've done a reasonably good
job there, but I'm certainly still interested in getting more eyes and
feedback on these documents.

The FAQ we posted in November [1] details a range of participation options,
including the Working Group, the Community Group, the Interest Group, and
simply joining the public mailing list and observing meetings. We've had
some luck on getting a wider range of public interest organizations to
comment via the Do-Not-Track Community Group (thanks to Lee and John for
focusing that group and bringing their feedback to the WG) and I could
certainly see something similar being useful for consolidating feedback from
smaller publishers or platforms. Thomas and I had floated the idea of a Web
Advertising Business Group last summer and didn't get much response, but I'd
be eager to try something like that again as a Community/Business Group that
can gather discussion and feedback from publishers, smaller ad networks or
other industry organizations that we're not hearing enough from.

If that sounds promising to you, Alan, or to others in the group, and you
might have recommendations for contacts to get involved that way, please let
me know off-list and I'll try to get that started.

Thanks,
Nick

P.S. Also, W3C has also just announced a reduced Membership fee for start-up
companies [2], if there are any organizations for whom that change could get
them involved, please point them to me or me to them.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/faq
[2] http://www.w3.org/News/2012.html#entry-9347
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 15:45:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:44 UTC