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

Re: ACTION-255: Work on financial reporting text

From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:29:27 -0400
Message-ID: <509127B7.9000700@networkadvertising.org>
To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org Working Group" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Hi Nick,

Thanks for this proposal. I have a few questions and comments -- inline....

On 10/30/12 12:06 PM, Nicholas Doty wrote:
>
>> Financial reporting and auditing
>>
>> Operators /may/ retain data related to a communication in a 
>> third-party context to use for billing and auditing of concurrent 
>> transactions. This may include counting ad impressions to unique 
>> visitors, verifying positioning and quality of ad impressions and 
>> auditing compliance with this and other standards.
>
I don't think we use the term "concurrent transactions" anywhere else. I 
see your not below, but still don't quite get it. Can you explain further?

I think this should include reporting as well, unless the thinking is 
that it is included within "billing."

Again we have this problem with trying to draft around the lack of a 
definition of tracking or otherwise a clear statement of what parties 
can or cannot do. This construction is "may retain data related to...." 
I feel strongly we need to finally define what tracking is, and 
shouldn't publish a spec without doing so. That aside, it at least needs 
to be consistent throughout the doc.

Rather than "this may include," it should say "examples include" or "may 
include but is not limited to."

> This text would be one of the enumerated permitted uses, replacing the 
> current editors' draft section 6.1.2.5.
>
> I suggested additional text, that might just be non-normative or 
> explanatory, but I don't believe that Alan thinks it's necessary, so 
> consider this part just from me:
>>
>> Note that (as described above/below) these requirements do not 
>> prohibit retention and use of data required by law or regulation, but 
>> the existence of a contractual requirement to retain data does not 
>> take precedence over compliance with these requirements.
>>
>> This permitted use is intended to provide for recording, reporting 
>> and verifying delivery of and interaction with online advertising and 
>> similar activities. It is not intended to cover retaining a user's ad 
>> impression to combine with later browsing activity, subsequent 
>> conversion, frequency capping or ad sequencing. Note that when a user 
>> meaningfully interacts with an ad or widget, such interaction is 
>> likely in a first-party context (and therefore not restricted by 
>> these third-party requirements).
>>
>
I agree it's unnecessary to say what we're trying to say 3 or 4 
different ways and multiple places. It's best if we can make clear, 
concise statements in the normative text, and provide limited commentary 
in the non-normative. The contractual issue is being addressed 
elsewhere, yes? And all the rest should be clear from normative text in 
the rest of the document. If it's not, we need to fix that text, not 
layer on more in other places.
>
> This proposal is a new attempt at a replacement for existing text on 
> financial reporting, an update from a past proposal based on financial 
> reporting law. The limiting factor of the "concurrent transaction" is 
> an attempt to enable the transactional billing (and related audits) 
> while not allowing any type of data collection required by a contract, 
> as I believe is the common intent of the group. We believe this might 
> also help with the ongoing discussion about MRC and other 
> self-regulatory regimes; where those systems are auditing for 
> financial reporting, then this permitted use might be more focused and 
> perhaps address concerns we've heard on that thread.
>
> A version of this text is present in my updated draft on permitted 
> uses, here: 
> http://npdoty.name/w3c/middle-way#financial-reporting-and-auditing
>
> Please let us know what you think.
> Thanks,
> Nick
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 13:30:06 UTC

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