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

Re: Poll text call: final text by 28 September

From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 17:22:20 -0400
Message-ID: <506B5B0C.8080905@networkadvertising.org>
To: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Aleecia,

On thing that happened with the prior poll was that several people ended 
up objecting to the premise or the phrasing of the options. That's 
something we should avoid, and Ian's proposal for time to review the 
options helps.

Also, I am sensitive to Roy's concerns about time, but as I've said 
before, it is more important to get this right than it is to get it 
fast. I realize there's some DNT fatigue at play, but considering the 
stakes, I'd implore us all to push through it.

Most important, however, and the real gist of my question, is our 
process for generating the options. Apart from Ian's requested process 
for a final review over the options -- which I'm reading as an 
opportunity to refine the options -- what is our process for generating 
all of the available options in the first place? Can one individual 
promote an option, or will we require group consensus on what the 
options are to be? Can the chairs unilaterally add or veto options? Are 
there any standards that must be met for an option to be viable?

I think it would be extremely beneficial to nail this down now, and I 
hope we can make some time for it tomorrow morning.

-David

On 9/30/12 1:08 AM, Aleecia M. McDonald wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> We have been doing this by identifying from whom to expect texts by phone or in person. Typically we have multiple people take action items to write texts, we talk those texts through, see if we can find a common approach across them, and if we are not able to find consensus organically then we move to the decision process with formal written objections.
>
> What we heard from Ian was a request for a specific period of time for review for the text options themselves. What we heard from Roy, generally, was a request to have this process not take forever each time. These are both reasonable and good additions to the process.
>
> That is why I both put the texts out for final comment (we had discussed this quite a bit in Boston, and subsequently by phone) and looked to a short span for discussion. My hope was we were done with the options and ready to move forward. From the thread, we're not quite there yet.
>
> 	Aleecia
>
> On Sep 28, 2012, at 3:55 PM, David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org> wrote:
>
>> Chairs,
>>
>> A procedural question. Given your intent to complete the TCS via a series of these polls, can you outline the procedure for adding options to a poll? It's not totally clear to me from the "getting to closed" doc how this works. Can anyone propose new options all the way up to the opening of the poll? Is there a standard for accepting new options? For example, I assume there must be some base level of relevance to the issue, yes? Any other bases for accepting or rejecting poll options?
>>
>> I think it'll be really helpful for us to understand this better prior to the Amsterdam meetings.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On 9/25/12 6:20 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald wrote:
>>>  From the call on 12 September, we discussed topics where we have increasing clarity on options for permitted uses. I want to make sure we have the text right to reflect our options prior to doing a decision process with a poll calling for objections, which is responsive to Ian's feedback. We also want to move quickly, as Roy suggests.
>>>
>>> Please propose specific alternative text if you believe that the two texts given below do not reflect the options before us by Friday, 28 September. We will briefly review these texts on the call tomorrow, just to make sure no one misses anything, and here we are on the mailing list, for those who cannot make the call.
>>>
>>> 	Aleecia
>>>
>>> -----
>>> Log files: issue-134
>>> ----
>>>
>>> This normative text fits into the section on Third Party Compliance, subsection 6.1.1.1, Short Term Collection and Use, <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#short-term>. We will also want non-normative text, and have some suggested, but that will be clearer once we have the normative text settled. (Options for definitions of unlinkable data are in section 3.6, Unlinkable Data, <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#def-unlinkable>.)
>>>
>>> Option 1:
>>> 	Operators MAY retain data related to a communication in a third-party context for up to 6 weeks. During this time, operators may render data unlinkable (as described above) or perform processing of the data for any of the other permitted uses.
>>>
>>> Option 2:
>>> 	Operators MAY retain data related to a communication in a third-party context. They MUST provide public transparency of their data retention period, which MUST have a specific time period (e.g. not infinite or indefinite.) During this time, operators may render data unlinkable (as described above) or perform processing of the data for any of the other permitted uses.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 21:22:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:35 UTC