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

Re: A First-Party List API for Site-Specific Exceptions (ISSUE-59, ISSUE-109, ISSUE-111, ISSUE-113, ISSUE-114)

From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:46:40 -0700
Cc: Sid Stamm <sid@mozilla.com>, Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <938FCA86-6176-490A-AAF5-992D0AA1CFC7@stanford.edu>
To: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>
A clarifying note on that second paragraph - a publisher may well care about DNT settings that reduce the revenue it can expect, on average, from a user (e.g. if the user has DNT enabled for behavioral ad companies that generate most of the publisher's revenue).  That's a very different (and much easier) analysis than determining how much revenue a specific page load will bring.

Jonathan

On Mar 17, 2012, at 8:36 PM, Jonathan Mayer wrote:

> A polling approach and a list approach converge when the space of potential third parties is known.  There are performance and privacy tradeoffs involved, but the same information could be available.
> 
> I'm not sure why you think a first-party publisher needs to know, in advance, the precise third-party ad revenue it will make from a specific visitor loading a specific page.  Publishers almost always don't know that now, and it's not a problem.  Moreover, I can't imagine a publisher ever would say, "Sorry, we couldn't find ad partners just now willing to pay enough, so we're not going to show you this page."  But even if publishers did need per-visit predictions of revenue, I don't see how DNT would complicate delivering that functionality in an ad network, ad exchange, series of ad companies, or any other market configuration.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> On Mar 15, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> 
>> ** I still maintain that polling is a completely unacceptable approach because
>> 1) The first party has to wait until the all of the ads and redirects and 3rd parties have returned (or returned their status which wont work either) before they know what to do.  This is too late.  The first party needs to know on the initial request.
>> 
>> 2) It just won't work.  The ad chains are dynamic.  Each step uses business logic to determine the next step.  You cannot ping the next step in the chain and say 'what is your DNT status and who is the next service on the list'.  It does not work that way.  These services have to have all of the information they will get in a normal request to process it and determine the next service in line.  So again a) you cannot get the list to ask for exceptions, b) that list may change per ad so you would always be popping up new exception requests, and c) again you would have to wait for the chain to return before you knew who was in the chain and how they would react to a DNT status.
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 18 March 2012 03:47:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:26 UTC