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

Re: f2f wrap up & next steps

From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 03:19:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4FEC0587.6000300@cippic.ca>
To: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>
CC: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>, Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, "Aleecia M. McDonald - W3C WG Co-Chair" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org>, Brendan Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net>, Marc Groman - NAI <mgroman@networkadvertising.org>, David Wainberg - NAI <david@networkadvertising.org>
Hi,

I think this is probably an unproductive side track. I took Peter to 
mean that those who wish to respect existing DNT signals from browsers 
that are sending these out (Firefox has for a while, and now IE10), are 
able to do so. That is not, of course, the same as implementing the W3C 
spec, and I think everyone agrees that a representation that a server 
'respects DNT signals' at this point cannot mean 'I respect the W3C 
spec' which is not yet completed.

I just wanted to add very briefly FWIW that I was very pleased 
(/relieved?) to hear that progress had been made at Seattle, and look 
forward to seeing revised drafts in the coming weeks.

Best,
Tamir

On 6/27/2012 8:57 PM, Mike Zaneis wrote:
> Peter,
>
> After this comment I will join Ian in ignoring your comments since 
> they are not based in reality any longer. First, thank you for 
> inventing standards processes, but the W3C staff and our Co-chairs 
> likewise discovered these about 10 months ago. I assume we will 
> continue to adhere to their processes.
>
> Second, your ignorance of the law is astounding. Maybe you missed it, 
> but the EU already has a law in place. Codification has been ongoing 
> for a couple of years so nothing that transpires in this group can 
> change that process.
>
> Lastly, again, maybe you missed the dozens of emails and news articles 
> covering this, but the group has previously reached consensus on the 
> fact that default "on" by browsers will be non-compliant with any W3C 
> standard.  You are free to continue to argue this point but I think we 
> all know what the definition of insanity is.
>
> Feel free to continue to argue with yourself.
>
> Mike Zaneis
> SVP & General Counsel, IAB
> (202) 253-1466
>
> On Jun 27, 2012, at 7:15 PM, "Peter Cranstone" 
> <peter.cranstone@gmail.com <mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Ian,
>>
>> What you continue to miss is actually shipping a working spec. There 
>> are 22 issues on the spec. How about we start at the top and work 
>> down. How about we put a timeline on those "issues" so we have a 
>> "forcing event" vs. lets sit in these endless debates.
>>
>> As for the exception mechanism – ok, lets solve that one. You work 
>> for a browser company, how about you start the ball rolling and give 
>> us some ways that Chrome can start supporting the exception 
>> mechanism. Of course they do actually need to support the three state 
>> mechanism first.
>>
>> Microsoft just accelerated the entire spec by announcing that Windows 
>> 8 will ship with DNT turned on "by default". That is ALL the EU needs 
>> to start enforcing a Do Not Track policy. Microsoft just effectively 
>> decouple the whole "technology vs. policy" debate and gave themselves 
>> a HUGE competitive advantage over every other browser.
>>
>> The second they ship, Chrome et al is in second place. Microsoft just 
>> took the lead in Privacy – and you let them.
>>
>>
>> Peter
>> ___________________________________
>> Peter J. Cranstone
>> 720.663.1752
>>
>>
>> From: "Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)" <ifette@google.com 
>> <mailto:ifette@google.com>>
>> Reply-To: <ifette@google.com <mailto:ifette@google.com>>
>> Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:01 PM
>> To: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com>>
>> Cc: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net <mailto:mike@iab.net>>, Chris Mejia 
>> <chris.mejia@iab.net <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>, Lauren Gelman 
>> <gelman@blurryedge.com <mailto:gelman@blurryedge.com>>, Alan Chapell 
>> <achapell@chapellassociates.com 
>> <mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>, "Aleecia M. McDonald - W3C 
>> WG Co-Chair" <aleecia@aleecia.com <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>>, W3 
>> Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, 
>> Brendan Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net 
>> <mailto:Brendan@iab.net>>, Marc Groman - NAI 
>> <mgroman@networkadvertising.org 
>> <mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org>>, David Wainberg - NAI 
>> <david@networkadvertising.org <mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>>
>> Subject: Re: f2f wrap up & next steps
>>
>>     Peter,
>>
>>     We have discussed that the timeline as it is exists is not an
>>     accurate reflection of the state of the WG. That was the timeline
>>     put forth when the group was formed. Had you bothered to join the
>>     group and attend the f2f, I'm sure you would realize that many
>>     people have been discussing what an updated timeline would look
>>     like, and that we have open issues around "what are our criteria
>>     for CR". We probably spent between a half hour and an hour on day
>>     1 discussing this issue alone.
>>
>>     Again, you continue to ignore half the spec (the exception
>>     mechanism, which provides an API for sites to call and which
>>     browsers are supposed to remember the user's decision from) which
>>     is certainly a part of "testing" any real deployment.
>>
>>     I honestly don't know why I am bothering to reply to you. You
>>     continue to ignore what people say, think you're the first person
>>     to think any of this up, and seem to have a knack for turning
>>     conversations into unproductive black holes. I'm going to escape
>>     the gravitational field whilst I can.
>>
>>     -Ian
>>
>>
>>     On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Peter Cranstone
>>     <peter.cranstone@gmail.com <mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Mike,
>>
>>         Have you looked at the timeline that Aleecia put forward? How
>>         can you put forward a timeline that is so out of touch with
>>         reality? I have no idea. I've read all the f2f meeting notes,
>>         checked the timeline, spoken with Rigo regarding the DNT
>>         header values and so you can imagine that reading your email
>>         is now a complete surprise to me. I've known Aleecia for
>>         awhile now and she's incredibly detailed and accurate.
>>
>>         So how can it (the timeline) be so far out of touch with what
>>         you're suggesting below? And why has no one else other than
>>         me pointed out why we all need to reset our expectation.
>>         Reset them to what?
>>
>>
>>
>>         Peter
>>         ___________________________________
>>         Peter J. Cranstone
>>         720.663.1752 <tel:720.663.1752>
>>
>>
>>         From: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net <mailto:mike@iab.net>>
>>         Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:06 PM
>>         To: "ifette@google.com <mailto:ifette@google.com>"
>>         <ifette@google.com <mailto:ifette@google.com>>, Peter
>>         Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com>>
>>         Cc: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net
>>         <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>, Lauren Gelman
>>         <gelman@blurryedge.com <mailto:gelman@blurryedge.com>>, Alan
>>         Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com
>>         <mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>, "Aleecia M.
>>         McDonald - W3C WG Co-Chair" <aleecia@aleecia.com
>>         <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>>, W3 Tracking
>>         <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>,
>>         Brendan Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net
>>         <mailto:Brendan@iab.net>>, Marc Groman - NAI
>>         <mgroman@networkadvertising.org
>>         <mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org>>, David Wainberg -
>>         NAI <david@networkadvertising.org
>>         <mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>>
>>
>>         Subject: RE: f2f wrap up & next steps
>>
>>             To continue with Ian’s list:
>>
>>             No browsers currently offer the ability to send DNT: 0,
>>             which is a critical element of the response process
>>
>>             We had a long discussion at the face to face meeting
>>             about how such choices would be offered, so this
>>             provision needs to be developed in the spec
>>
>>             Peter, I think you need to get a handle on the working
>>             group process and its status.  You state that we are a
>>             few days away from issuing a last call document(s).  I
>>             won’t put a time frame on when this group will come to
>>             consensus around a document, but we have openly talked
>>             about another face to face meeting in the September time
>>             frame, so you should readjust your expectations like the
>>             rest of us have.
>>
>>             I don’t think it is helpful to berate the group about
>>             implementation, technology mandates, or unrealistic
>>             timeframes and deadlines.  Again, I do not know if you
>>             are out of touch with the working group because you are
>>             relatively new or because you were not at the last face
>>             to face meeting, but either way none of this helps focus
>>             our discussion, nor does it increase buy in from
>>             companies.  Let’s be transparent and accurate, which is
>>             the only way we will continue to advance the process.
>>
>>             Mike Zaneis
>>
>>             SVP & General Counsel
>>
>>             Interactive Advertising Bureau
>>
>>             (202) 253-1466 <tel:%28202%29%20253-1466>
>>
>>             Follow me on Twitter @mikezaneis
>>
>>             *From:*Ian Fette (イアンフェッ ティ)
>>             [mailto:ifette@google.com]
>>             *Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:40 PM
>>             *To:* Peter Cranstone
>>             *Cc:* Mike Zaneis; Chris Mejia; Lauren Gelman; Alan
>>             Chapell; Aleecia M. McDonald - W3C WG Co-Chair; W3C DNT
>>             Working Group Mailing List; Brendan Riordan-Butterworth;
>>             Marc Groman - NAI; David Wainberg - NAI
>>
>>
>>             *Subject:* Re: f2f wrap up & next steps
>>
>>             The spec speaks to a heck of a lot more than sending
>>             1/0/unset. There's the mechanism for requesting
>>             exceptions, there's response codes from the server.
>>             Saying "you send 0/1 from the browser and you're done" is
>>             disingenuous.
>>
>>             On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Peter Cranstone
>>             <peter.cranstone@gmail.com
>>             <mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>             Mike,
>>
>>             The spec talks to sending 1, 0 and unset. Nothing has
>>             changed there for months and months. All major browsers
>>             (except one) currently support it.
>>
>>             So what has changed? Why don't you tell us, and then
>>             explain why we cannot yet begin to implement it? It's
>>             very convenient to say that a spec is a "moving target"
>>             and yet nobody explains what the moving target is or why
>>             it keeps moving.
>>
>>             Why don't we start with a real list of what remains to be
>>             done to complete the implementation of the spec. From
>>             Aleecia's list the other day
>>             (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/) we're a few
>>             days away from last call. Ignoring the missing (or maybe
>>             not) Call for Implementation we're one month a way from a
>>             "Call for Review".
>>
>>             So – in summary we're roughly 45 days away from shipping
>>             this spec out the door and about 120 days from a final
>>             recommendation. Exactly how far off can this spec be?
>>
>>             Where's the final to do list – absent that all I see is
>>             delaying tactics.
>>
>>
>>             Peter
>>             ___________________________________
>>             Peter J. Cranstone
>>             720.663.1752 <tel:720.663.1752>
>>
>>             *From: *Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net <mailto:mike@iab.net>>
>>             *Date: *Wednesday, June 27, 2012 12:19 PM
>>
>>
>>             *To: *Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com
>>             <mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com>>, Chris Mejia
>>             <chris.mejia@iab.net <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>,
>>             Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com
>>             <mailto:gelman@blurryedge.com>>
>>             *Cc: *Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com
>>             <mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>, "Aleecia M.
>>             McDonald - W3C WG Co-Chair" <aleecia@aleecia.com
>>             <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>>, W3 Tracking
>>             <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>,
>>             Brendan Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net
>>             <mailto:Brendan@iab.net>>, Marc Groman - NAI
>>             <mgroman@networkadvertising.org
>>             <mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org>>, David Wainberg
>>             - NAI <david@networkadvertising.org
>>             <mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>>
>>             *Subject: *RE: f2f wrap up & next steps
>>
>>                 Peter,
>>
>>                 You are right, you can implement the “current state
>>                 of the spec”.  However, that spec is changing.  The
>>                 technological implementation in that spec is
>>                 changing, per our hours of discussion last week.  I’m
>>                 sorry you missed the meeting last week, but you
>>                 should not misrepresent the facts just because you
>>                 are not aware of them or choose to ignore them.
>>
>>                 Mike Zaneis
>>
>>                 SVP & General Counsel
>>
>>                 Interactive Advertising Bureau
>>
>>                 (202) 253-1466 <tel:%28202%29%20253-1466>
>>
>>                 Follow me on Twitter @mikezaneis
>>
>>                 *From:*Peter Cranstone [mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com]
>>
>>                 *Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:16 PM
>>                 *To:* Mike Zaneis; Chris Mejia; Lauren Gelman
>>                 *Cc:* Alan Chapell; Aleecia M. McDonald - W3C WG
>>                 Co-Chair; W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List; Brendan
>>                 Riordan-Butterworth; Marc Groman - NAI; David
>>                 Wainberg - NAI
>>                 *Subject:* Re: f2f wrap up & next steps
>>
>>                 I disagree. You can implement the current state of
>>                 the spec this afternoon. The W3 could not have made
>>                 this spec any simpler than a 1, 0 or unset (and those
>>                 headers haven't changed forever). There can only be
>>                 three values to look for. That's the no brainer part.
>>
>>                 What you cannot know is the legal (policy)
>>                 ramifications are from not complying correctly with
>>                 what you just implemented.
>>
>>                 For example – I look for a header, I see the header,
>>                 I comply with the header – what happens next if
>>                 someone wants to audit what I just did? What happens
>>                 if somehow my code has bugs in it and instead of
>>                 complying with a 1 header I inadvertently send a 0 to
>>                 all the third parties and violate someone's privacy.
>>                 What kind of legal costs could I incur from not being
>>                 perfectly compliant?
>>
>>                 Tech has never been the issue on this spec – because
>>                 it's so simple. It's just been used as an excuse to
>>                 delay adding privacy controls for a consumer which
>>                 they may or may not "choose" to use. It's now
>>                 becoming a marketing/legal problem.
>>
>>
>>                 Peter
>>
>>
>>                 ___________________________________
>>                 Peter J. Cranstone
>>                 720.663.1752 <tel:720.663.1752>
>>
>>                 *From: *Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net <mailto:mike@iab.net>>
>>
>>
>>                 *Date: *Wednesday, June 27, 2012 12:07 PM
>>                 *To: *Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com
>>                 <mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com>>, Chris Mejia
>>                 <chris.mejia@iab.net <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>,
>>                 Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com
>>                 <mailto:gelman@blurryedge.com>>
>>                 *Cc: *Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com
>>                 <mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>, "Aleecia M.
>>                 McDonald - W3C WG Co-Chair" <aleecia@aleecia.com
>>                 <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>>, W3 Tracking
>>                 <public-tracking@w3.org
>>                 <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, Brendan
>>                 Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net
>>                 <mailto:Brendan@iab.net>>, Marc Groman - NAI
>>                 <mgroman@networkadvertising.org
>>                 <mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org>>, David
>>                 Wainberg - NAI <david@networkadvertising.org
>>                 <mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>>
>>                 *Subject: *RE: f2f wrap up & next steps
>>
>>                     I don’t think we need to get into a protracted
>>                     debate about this issue.  There is no W3C spec at
>>                     this time, either a technical spec or a
>>                     compliance spec.  These documents change on a
>>                     weekly basis and will continue to do so until
>>                     they are completed.  If a company wants to commit
>>                     publically to following a document that is in a
>>                     constant state of flux, that is their choice and
>>                     the IAB will not try to dissuade them from doing
>>                     so.  However, we will educate our members about
>>                     the actual state of play with the W3C documents,
>>                     especially when there is messaging that indicates
>>                     the technical spec is complete and simple to
>>                     implement, neither of which is true (by
>>                     definition it cannot be simple to implement a
>>                     spec that is always subject to change).
>>
>>                     In any case, the IAB does not provide legal
>>                     advice and no messaging done in this group should
>>                     be construed as such.
>>
>>                     Mike Zaneis
>>
>>                     SVP & General Counsel
>>
>>                     Interactive Advertising Bureau
>>
>>                     (202) 253-1466 <tel:%28202%29%20253-1466>
>>
>>                     Follow me on Twitter @mikezaneis
>>
>>                     *From:*Peter Cranstone
>>                     [mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com]
>>
>>                     *Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:45 PM
>>                     *To:* Chris Mejia; Lauren Gelman
>>                     *Cc:* Alan Chapell; Aleecia M. McDonald - W3C WG
>>                     Co-Chair; W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List;
>>                     Mike Zaneis; Brendan Riordan-Butterworth; Marc
>>                     Groman - NAI; David Wainberg - NAI
>>                     *Subject:* Re: f2f wrap up & next steps
>>
>>                     Here's the technology part of the spec.
>>
>>                     Browser sends DNT:1
>>
>>                     Server accepts DNT: 1 (reads incoming header)
>>
>>                     Server sets a flag on the data for storage
>>                     compliance reasons
>>
>>                     Technology issues are now over. It would just
>>                     take few lines of code to read that incoming
>>                     header (Mod_DNT
>>                     <http://www.5o9mm.com/mod_dnt_test_1.php> already
>>                     does it, you can seen instantly if the header is
>>                     present. Probably took us an hour.) Everything
>>                     that happens from that point on (costs, loss or
>>                     gain in revenue, compliance etc.) is now governed
>>                     by policy.
>>
>>                     That's where things are going to get complicated
>>                     regardless of how DNT is implemented from a
>>                     technology standpoint.
>>
>>
>>                     Peter
>>
>>
>>                     ___________________________________
>>                     Peter J. Cranstone
>>                     720.663.1752 <tel:720.663.1752>
>>
>>                     *From: *Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net
>>                     <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>
>>
>>
>>                     *Date: *Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:36 AM
>>                     *To: *Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com
>>                     <mailto:gelman@blurryedge.com>>
>>                     *Cc: *Alan Chapell
>>                     <achapell@chapellassociates.com
>>                     <mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>,
>>                     "Aleecia M. McDonald - W3C WG Co-Chair"
>>                     <aleecia@aleecia.com
>>                     <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>>, W3 Tracking
>>                     <public-tracking@w3.org
>>                     <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, Mike Zaneis
>>                     <mike@iab.net <mailto:mike@iab.net>>, Brendan
>>                     Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net
>>                     <mailto:Brendan@iab.net>>, Marc Groman - NAI
>>                     <mgroman@networkadvertising.org
>>                     <mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org>>, David
>>                     Wainberg - NAI <david@networkadvertising.org
>>                     <mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>>
>>                     *Subject: *Re: f2f wrap up & next steps
>>                     *Resent-From: *W3 Tracking
>>                     <public-tracking@w3.org
>>                     <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
>>                     *Resent-Date: *Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:37:30 +0000
>>
>>                         Just to clarify, I have not provided any
>>                         "legal advise" nor would I ever propose to do
>>                         so; I'm not a lawyer or even a public policy
>>                         expert, I'm a technologist.
>>
>>                         I simply balanced the assertion (from
>>                         Aleecia's message: "/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/") that companies should proceed with
>>                         implementing a specification that is not
>>                         final, with reasonable questions and points
>>                         to consider before doing so.  Considering all
>>                         points is not only fair, it's a responsible
>>                         business practice.
>>
>>                         I also have not proposed that companies
>>                         should not contemplate testing.  Testing and
>>                         actual implementation are two different things.
>>
>>                         Kind Regards,
>>
>>                         Chris
>>
>>                         Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions
>>                         | Ad Technology Group | Interactive
>>                         Advertising Bureau - IAB |
>>                         chris.mejia@iab.net
>>                         <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net> |
>>
>>                         *From: *Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com
>>                         <mailto:gelman@blurryedge.com>>
>>                         *Date: *Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:23:10 -0700
>>                         *To: *Chris Mejia - IAB <chris.mejia@iab.net
>>                         <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>
>>                         *Cc: *Alan Chapell
>>                         <achapell@chapellassociates.com
>>                         <mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>,
>>                         "Aleecia M. McDonald - W3C WG Co-Chair"
>>                         <aleecia@aleecia.com
>>                         <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>>, W3C DNT
>>                         Working Group Mailing List
>>                         <public-tracking@w3.org
>>                         <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, Mike Zaneis
>>                         - IAB <mike@iab.net <mailto:mike@iab.net>>,
>>                         Brendan Riordan-Butterworth - IAB
>>                         <brendan@iab.net <mailto:brendan@iab.net>>,
>>                         Marc Groman - NAI
>>                         <mgroman@networkadvertising.org
>>                         <mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org>>,
>>                         David Wainberg - NAI
>>                         <david@networkadvertising.org
>>                         <mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>>
>>                         *Subject: *Re: f2f wrap up & next steps
>>
>>                         It is inappropriate to offer this kind of
>>                         generalized legal advise on this list.  It is
>>                         up to individual businesses to decide how
>>                         they want to compete. It is these scare
>>                         tactics that have made privacy policies
>>                         ineffective and created the demand for DNT.
>>
>>                         It is perfectly plausible to write a
>>                         disclosure on any topic that accurately
>>                         informs a user of a company's policies and
>>                         the costs/benefits involved and does not
>>                         create unreasonable risk to the business.  I
>>                         am available to provide references to people
>>                         who are happy to work with companies who want
>>                         to "do the right thing."
>>
>>                         And frankly, it is just insincere to
>>                         criticize DNT because it has not been tested
>>                         in large scale implementation and
>>                         simultaneously warn companies not to attempt
>>                         large scale implementations because DNT has
>>                         not been finalized.
>>
>>                         Lauren Gelman
>>                         BlurryEdge Strategies
>>                         415-627-8512 <tel:415-627-8512>
>>
>>                         On Jun 27, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Chris Mejia wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>                         Well written Alan, thank you.  I'd like to
>>                         further highlight one very important point
>>                         you made below:
>>
>>                         */"Not to mention that any public
>>                         representation that one is complying with DNT
>>                         may subject a company to regulatory scrutiny."/*
>>
>>                         Any company contemplating public committal to
>>                         "honoring" DNT headers at this stage, before
>>                         a specification has been agreed to, finalized
>>                         and published, should carefully consider a
>>                         few important points:
>>
>>                           * The DNT specification is not
>>                             complete/final.  Finalization may be many
>>                             months away, and there is always a
>>                             possibility that it is never finalized
>>                             (i.e. the spec creation /could/ be
>>                             abandoned pursuant to intellectual
>>                             property claims, for example).  Although
>>                             we are all working to a positive outcome,
>>                             companies should consider ALL possible
>>                             outcomes before committing.
>>                           * Committing your adherence publicly to a
>>                             "moving target" specification may
>>                             bind/expose your company later to
>>                             requirements that may not be achievable
>>                             once the specification is finalized.  In
>>                             other words, why would you commit to
>>                             something when you don't know what that
>>                             something will be?  What if the technical
>>                             requirements of the final spec are not
>>                             achievable, are cost prohibitive and/or
>>                             not friendly to your business model and
>>                             thus your longevity as a company?  What
>>                             if adherence to the final specification
>>                             means a significant drop in revenue for
>>                             your company?
>>                           * Be sure that at least here in the US, and
>>                             possibly elsewhere, regulatory
>>                             authorities will likely exercise all
>>                             their power to ensure that you remain in
>>                             compliance with the final specification,
>>                             even though you may have only committed
>>                             to a preliminary version.  In bringing
>>                             action against your company, they may
>>                             cite reasonable consumer expectations
>>                             based on the final specification and/or
>>                             market confusion if you don't elect to
>>                             comply with the full specification later,
>>                             having publicly committed to it previously.
>>
>>                         All in all, while it might seem like you are
>>                         "doing the right thing" or "getting ahead of
>>                         the game" by committing early to the
>>                         unfinished specification, doing so may put
>>                         your company at significant risk down the
>>                         line.  Please make this decision carefully,
>>                         and ensure you are well informed before
>>                         committing.  The IAB, DAA, NAI and OPA are
>>                         industry resources you may want to consult
>>                         during your decision making process.  Again,
>>                         we are all interested in protecting consumer
>>                         privacy.
>>
>>                         Kind Regards,
>>
>>                         Chris Mejia, IAB
>>
>>                         Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions
>>                         | Ad Technology Group | Interactive
>>                         Advertising Bureau - IAB |
>>                         chris.mejia@iab.net
>>                         <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net> |
>>
>>                         *From: *Alan Chapell
>>                         <achapell@chapellassociates.com
>>                         <mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>
>>                         *Date: *Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:34:35 -0400
>>                         *To: *"Aleecia M. McDonald - W3C WG Co-Chair"
>>                         <aleecia@aleecia.com
>>                         <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>>, W3C DNT
>>                         Working Group Mailing List
>>                         <public-tracking@w3.org
>>                         <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
>>                         *Subject: *Re: f2f wrap up & next steps
>>                         *Resent-From: *W3C DNT Working Group Mailing
>>                         List <public-tracking@w3.org
>>                         <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
>>                         *Resent-Date: *Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:35:35 +0000
>>
>>                         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
>>                         <mailto: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
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2012 07:21:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:31 UTC