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

Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

From: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:08:43 +0000
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
CC: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>, Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com>, "Richard Weaver (Comscore)" <rweaver@comscore.com>
Message-ID: <CCAD9710.26337%chris.mejia@iab.net>
Yes Rigo, I have provided the answer to this working group.  Refer to the
online record and you will see it.  Respectfully, email doesn't have a
"tone" and my foot feels fine.  Perhaps you are confusing directness and
frankness with a particular "tone"?  If you'd like to call me out on
misconduct charges, please provide your case to me and my management,
under professional and formal cover.

When this group defines the terms "track" and "tracking," then we'll
finally be able to understand which exact business practices this
specification refers to-- until then, you and others continue to lump
EVERY business practice under this specification-- sorry, I don't think
that's productive in creating or closing a spec, especially one you want
industry to voluntarily implement.

Chris

Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group |
Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB




On 10/24/12 11:49 AM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

>Chris, 
>
>On Tuesday 23 October 2012 23:08:16 Chris Mejia wrote:
>> John, I already answered Ed's email‹ it's in the record on this
>> thread.
>
>You provided one non-answer and an expert claim because you sit on a
>committee. I wait for the answer from the expert on whether, like Ed
>put it:
>> So your position is that the MRC documents do require companies to
>> collect linkable data about every consumer?
>
>Neither you nor Brooks have provided an answer to that question. Is
>data collection required for all interactions or not? If not, how do
>we distinguish between those interactions where it is required and
>those where it isn't? And why can't that happen under DNT:0. As far
>as I understood, the metrics folks are pretty good in getting buy-in
>to their measurement programs.
>
>In the light of our general approach as laid down in the compliance
>specification, there must be due justification (necessary) of data
>collection if you want to collect even under DNT:1 (see wording in
>permitted uses). Utility consideration are not sufficient for
>"necessary" IMHO. MRC is not covered by the current permitted uses
>and would go into market research as a permitted us. (which is
>something I assume Rob will have trouble with)
>
>If this is too complex for version one, we may just defer the MRC
>topic to later versions. And please excuse my ignorance about your
>earlier statements. I'm traveling and having hard times exploring
>the archives. As for Amy's proposal, I answer in another email.
>
>Finally, tuning in after an OECD meeting (marked by the extreme
>politeness of an old school international venue), I'm amazed by the
>patience of people with your tone. Congrats to everyone. Chris, note
>that by your tone you just shoot your own foot and harm your own
>credibility. Please try at least to remain more polite.
>
>Rigo
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 17:09:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:37 UTC