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

Re: ACTION-265

From: Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:43:10 -0700
Cc: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FA558EF3-B238-476E-A33C-ADF2F283D33F@blurryedge.com>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>

Is there a reason specific to the W3C process that people keep adding the term "commercially reasonable" instead of "reasonable"?  From a legal perspective there is no difference.  Reasonable is an objective test (interpreted based on how others in a similar situation would have behaved).  

Can I suggest you drop the word "commercial" anywhere it appears in the text in order to avoid confusion.

Lauren Gelman
BlurryEdge Strategies
415-627-8512

On Oct 17, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Shane Wiley wrote:

> Depends on the scale and nature of the problem Ė each company would need to be able to defend their reaction time, approach, priority, and effort to rectify the situation.  If itís a very small problem, then I would expect the response to be swift (days/weeks).  If itís a larger problem, it may make more time to address the situation (new code release, data clean up cycles).  The important items are that the issue has been identified and the company has committed to rectifying the situation.
>  
> - Shane
>  
> From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:18 AM
> To: Shane Wiley
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ACTION-265
>  
> Shane,
>  
> A clarifying question:  Could you please give a rough idea of how long a "commercially reasonable time" would be?
>  
> Thanks,
> John
>  
> ----------
> John M. Simpson
> Consumer Advocate
> Consumer Watchdog
> 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
> Santa Monica, CA,90405
> Tel: 310-392-7041
> Cell: 310-292-1902
> www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
> john@consumerwatchdog.org
>  
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> 
> 
> Updated text per our discussions in Amsterdam.
>  
> Tracking Compliance and Scope
> Section 3.8.1
>  
> It may happen that a party claiming compliance with this standard will retain or use data without awareness that it is doing so contrary to its intended party position with respect to the standard. In such a case, the party must bring its practices and prior collected data into compliance with the standard within a commercially reasonable time after it learns of such non-compliant activity.
>  
>  
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 19:43:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:36 UTC