Re: f2f wrap up & next steps

Implementation is already taking place. All the major Browser OEM's (except
one, and you can use a plugin) already support sending the DNT header. The
issue therefore moves to the server and what is required by the content
providers. Again it's fairly straightforward ­ if you see DNT:1 AND you have
agreed to honor it, then you should do so. The spec already gives more than
enough detail on what is required from thereon. I see no issues from a
technology standpoint (maybe some performance issues but those can be
overcome). 

The remaining issues are all "policy".


Peter
___________________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
720.663.1752


From:  Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
Date:  Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:11 AM
To:  Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Cc:  "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, W3 Tracking
<public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: f2f wrap up & next steps
Resent-From:  W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:12:30 +0000

> We made some very good progress at the F2F, better understanding the issues
> which we need to address.  The group's work should continue with the Charter
> extended, as the public expects us to accomplish something significant.  As
> for implementation issues, let's get the basics right.  We have a significant
> opportunity here to achieve our collective goals of fostering
> monetization/robust online publishing with privacy values.
> 
> Consumer groups have said along we understand reasonable phased- in policies
> will be required.  While I appreciate Alan's concern about the impact on small
> and medium businesses, we will keep them in mind as we work to finalize a
> framework that works.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jeff
> Center for Digital Democracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 27, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Alan Chapell wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Aleecia.
>> 
>> I'm sure this wasn't your intent, but I'd caution the group against creating
>> the impression that the marketplace should look to implement right now given
>> that we haven't defined many of the key terms at this point. While it may
>> make sense for some companies to expiriment and look through documentation as
>> we create it, the reality is that many small to mid-sized companies may not
>> have the resources to pour into understanding let along implementing a
>> document where key terms are still in flux. Not to mention that any public
>> representation that one is complying with DNT may subject a company to
>> regulatory scrutiny.
>> 
>> Also, I wanted to circle back regarding the group's charter. Thomas mentioned
>> something about rechartering during the meeting, but I hadn't heard anything
>> further. I'm wondering if this is an appropriate opportunity to re-evaluate
>> what we're really trying to accomplish in this group ­ as there seemed to be
>> a myriad of opinions raised to that effect in Bellevue. And to be clear, I'm
>> not necessarily advocating specific changes to the charter. In any event, if
>> the W3C is working under the assumption that rechartering should
>> automatically take place without at least some group discussion, I would see
>> that as problematic. I'm sure that's not the case. So, I'm simply asking if
>> this will be on the July 11 agenda? I believe the charter expires in July,
>> correct?
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Alan Chapell
>> Chapell & Associates
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 6/25/12 11:17 PM, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Greetings,
>>> 
>>> Thank you to the 60+ people who attended the Seattle meeting, many of whom
>>> flew great distances to make it. We walked in with two Compliance proposals
>>> that were far apart, with neither able to reach consensus in the form it was
>>> in. As a group we decided we needed to move the proposals closer to the
>>> center, and we did just that. We walked out with an overall direction that
>>> everyone can live with for permitted business uses, including proposed text
>>> for two of the five we discussed, and great new ideas. We can now see the
>>> outline what DNT will look like and where we need to go. We took up some of
>>> the most contentious remaining issues, on purpose, and we made solid
>>> progress on the hardest stuff.
>>> 
>>> I am particularly pleased with proposals that allow business uses to
>>> continue while improving privacy, by doing things a little differently with
>>> a low burden for implementation. That's a home run. That's exactly what we
>>> are looking for, the point where everyone can live with the outcome. That is
>>> the hope and promise for DNT, and what we are all working so hard to
>>> realize. We still have a lot to do. There are many details to fit into
>>> place, some of them quite important to some stakeholders. We will work
>>> through them. I was encouraged hearing people say, "This is not what I would
>>> choose, but I can live with it in order to move forward." Well done. That's
>>> how consensus happens.
>>> 
>>> On TPE, editors will incorporate decisions that came out of the final day,
>>> and then we will review the final text as a group to ensure all is as
>>> agreed. Similarly on Compliance, the editors will write a strawman proposal
>>> that incorporates text from four different documents (existing draft,
>>> proposed combination draft, proposal from Shane et al, proposal from
>>> Jonathan et al.) That strawman is already well in progress thanks to our
>>> talented editors. My hope is for a Compliance strawman draft by the week of
>>> July 2. As a group, we will then review all text that has not had consensus
>>> (that is, no need to re-review text that was already agreed upon in prior
>>> drafts, nor the text we agreed upon while Nick live-edited during the
>>> Seattle meeting.) We need to publish new drafts soon, since it has been
>>> several months since our last publications. We will evaluate the state of
>>> the drafts to see if we are ready to ask for input as a First Last Call
>>> document with major issues resolved, or if we are looking at a Third Public
>>> Working Draft. 
>>> 
>>> Either way, I believe we will be far enough along for many potential early
>>> adopters to begin their work on implementations without risk of redoing
>>> major work, provided we are very clear about where work remains in flux. To
>>> do that well, as Ian points out, we will need at least one user agent
>>> developing a compliant implementation so we can test interoperability. We
>>> have already worked through about half of the issues on user agent
>>> compliance with one conference call and an hour in Seattle. We'll work
>>> through the rest in the fairly near term. After we review the strawman
>>> draft, if you are planning on doing an implementation soon and there are
>>> specific unresolved Compliance issues that would get in your way, I'm open
>>> to prioritizing them earlier. Just let me know so I can make informed
>>> scheduling trade offs.
>>> 
>>> Our next face-to-face meeting will be in Europe, likely in mid- to late
>>> September. If you have a location that can handle about 70 people in that
>>> time frame for three days, please let us know the details. We have a
>>> generous standing offer to go back to Brussels, though we try to hold
>>> meetings in varied locations to distribute the travel burden. Once we know
>>> our options we will use an online Doodle poll to understand which
>>> possibilities allow the greatest number of TPWG members to attend, just as
>>> we have done for past meetings.
>>> 
>>> Coming soon...
>>> - a new mailing list to receive external comments. By the time we get out of
>>> Last Call, we'll have a few of those, plus comments from implementations.
>>> - Rigo will begin to organize the first draft of the Global Considerations
>>> document, which will be non-normative.
>>> 
>>> To me, it felt like Seattle was the bumpiest f2f I've co-chaired. I am
>>> thrilled to have new voices and a greater breadth of stakeholders, but it is
>>> challenging with different levels of understanding of the work to date. Next
>>> time, perhaps we need a mandatory in person pre-meeting for anyone who has
>>> not attended a prior f2f. It's also hard to make progress with the sheer
>>> number of people. I didn't scale with the group size as well as I'd like. I
>>> have some ideas and will keep thinking about that. And I made it harder on
>>> all of us than it had to be because I started to get frustrated. We'd spent
>>> two months with radically different proposals and movement by inches when we
>>> needed yards. What I learned last week is to have more faith in the ability
>>> of the full group to get hard things done, and to trust the process. We're
>>> making progress, moving toward the middle, and as Ed points out, we can see
>>> where the final compromise needs to be. Let's make it happen.
>>> 
>>> Thank you again to Microsoft for the space, and for Facebook, Google, and
>>> Yahoo! for hosting financially and feeding us. A special warm thank you to
>>> JC for taking great care of us in his beautiful city of Seattle. If you
>>> scribed last week - thank you! If you didn't - be ready to do so an upcoming
>>> call. :-)
>>> 
>>> Aleecia
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> Jeffrey Chester
> Center for Digital Democracy
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
> Washington, DC 20009
> www.democraticmedia.org <http://www.democraticmedia.org>
> www.digitalads.org <http://www.digitalads.org>
> 202-986-2220
>