- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:00:17 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>, Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
On Wednesday 24 October 2012 15:16:34 Chris Mejia wrote: > I just cant understand why having a phone call on this topic, to > clear any misinterpretations/misunderstandings, has been pushed > back on? Maybe I'm old fashioned? Chris, 100 messages since yesterday, no TPWG call for personal reasons of the chair. Please hold the horses a bit. We'll get to it. I'm currently all day in meetings and need to understand better. If you don't mind (I would understand if you do), you could answer some of my questions by email to help my understanding and on order to ease my reading task. I try to recap the discussion so far: * Amy makes a suggestion that includes a priority for all self regulation regimes and other obligations. One of the key cases according to Amy was to satisfy MRC. Following Amy's suggestion, I saw the following: * Opposition to the generic superiority of all other rules over DNT * Questions about what data MRC collects appear * Questions about whether MRC is a mandatory to services apply with every request. * Whether MRC data collection is applied regardless of DNT headers * whether MRC data collection has unique identifiers Do you have answers to that questions? I think it is on the chairs to decide when this could be presented. They own the agenda and I can't force that either. So we should register MRC and outreach measurement as an issue. I wonder whether this is close to the market research topic. A presentation would make that clearer IMHO. You may want to coordinate with Kathy Joe on this. For me MRC is less related to the initial legal question and more related to a permitted use. Rigo
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 14:00:54 UTC