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

(unknown charset) Re: ISSUE-111 (was: Agenda for 2012-Mar-14 call [Note: Call starts 1h earlier (5pm CET) in Europe; Times unchanged in the US])

From: (unknown charset) Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:42:56 +0100
Message-ID: <4F607630.2080301@zurich.ibm.com>
To: (unknown charset) public-tracking@w3.org

from the constructive and lively mailing list discussion on ISSUE-111
I understand that we do not have agreement on how to best manage the

The purpose of today's call is to
 a) Understand the objectives of the site-specific exceptions
 b) Understand all the observations and discussions

and most importantly
 c) find a team/ teams of volunteers that would like to create a
revised proposal


PS: Some inputs, I picked from the mailing list:

DISCUSSION 1: Opinions on the Granularity of site-specific exceptions:
- Permitting specific third parties is too fine-grained and users will
  know these third parties nor care
- As a consequence, only opt-in to "*" will be used
- Users want transparency and need to know what third parties are in use
- A browser always 'knows' the third parties (after all, it sends http
- Users may want to prevent exceptions for selected third parties that
   are perceived as bad
- Third parties should not be treated as a 'third party of a first
party" but
   rather as independent entities (asking for exeptions on their own)
- ...

DISCUSSION 2: Informing the server of the current exeption state at
the client
- A site needs to know whether the third parties in use still work
- A site does not know what third parties are actually used at a point
in time
 Status: DNT;2 to signal that there are
  site-specific exeptions for a site
- Transparency: At the end of the day, the browser can
control the interaction and the browser can request a 3rd party
resource, or not. So 3rd parties better declare that they have
implemented DNT to generate some confidence. We are creating an entire
new ecosystem here. And all have to adapt to this new ecosystem. The
user has to make responsible choices. First parties have to take their
responsibilities on what to allow on their site.
And third parties have to work to regain some confidence. Hiding
doesn't help here.

On 3/13/2012 5:53 PM, Matthias Schunter wrote:
> Chair:Matthias
> Goals:
> - Start new discussions on open issues for TPE
> - Assign actions to revise/write text addressing those issues
> ---------------------------
> Administrative
> ---------------------------
> 1. Selection of scribe
> 2. Any comments on minutes:
> http://www.w3.org/2012/03/07-dnt-minutes
> <http://www.w3.org/2012/02/08-dnt-minutes>
> 3.  Review of overdue action items: 
>    https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue
> <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/>
> ---------------------------
> New business
> ---------------------------
> 4. ISSUE-111: Signaling status and existence of site-specific exceptions
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/111
> 5. Responses: Header & URI
> - Discuss Tom & Roy's ideas how to combine headers and URIs
> ---------------------------
> More business (if time permits)
> ---------------------------
> 6. Creation of new actions for TPE
> 7. Announce next meeting & adjourn
> ================ 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
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 10:43:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:46 UTC