Re: Wednesday call this week on TPE; schedule leading up to F2F

Hello:

Web page for the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing, beginning at 2:30
p.m. eastern on this Wednesday:


http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id
=1cf8fb1a-fb0b-4bf1-958b-1ea3c443a73c&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d3
5-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a

Witnesses:


* Mr. Harvey Anderson
Senior Vice President of Business and Legal Affairs and General Counsel
Mozilla

* Mr. Justin Brookman
Director, Project on Consumer Privacy
Center for Democracy and Technology

* Mr. Luigi Mastria
Managing Director 
Digital Advertising Alliance

* Mr. Adam Thierer 
Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center
George Mason University





Professor Peter P. Swire
C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
    Ohio State University
240.994.4142
www.peterswire.net





-----Original Message-----
From: <SULLIVAN>, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 7:54 PM
To: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>, "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Wednesday call this week on TPE; schedule leading up to F2F

>Peter, can you forward more info on the "U.S. Senate hearing scheduled on
>DNT", e.g. 
>- what WG members will be witnesses
>- how we can access the webcast
>
>Thanks,
>Bryan Sullivan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Swire [mailto:peter@peterswire.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:17 AM
>To: rob@blaeu.com
>Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
>Subject: Wednesday call this week on TPE; schedule leading up to F2F
>
>Hello to the Group:
>
>Matthias will circulate today an agenda for this Wednesday's call that
>will have TPE matters as the focus.
>
>As many of you know, there is a U.S. Senate hearing scheduled on DNT just
>shortly after the weekly call. Three of the four witnesses are members of
>the WG, and other WG members (including myself) expect to be physically at
>the hearing, along with others watching the webcast.
>
>The call this week will thus focus on TPE, and I am not sure whether I
>will be able to be on it.
>
>The next Wednesday call will be on May 1, and I expect it to be an
>important call.  Apologies to those in countries where May 1 is a holiday,
>but I expect that call to have a lot of important content about the
>compliance spec and the F2F.
>
>W3C staff and I are working hard to have more to present to the WG about
>how to use the F2F constructively.  We will be following up during this
>week as we have more to say.
>
>Best,
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Professor Peter P. Swire
>C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
>    Ohio State University
>240.994.4142
>www.peterswire.net
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
>Reply-To: "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com>
>Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:23 PM
>To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, Peter Swire
><peter@peterswire.net>
>Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
>Subject: Re: FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez's speech
>
>>
>>Thank you John, it inspired me to write an open letter to the chairs
>>and the group.
>>
>>Dear Peter,
>>Dear Matthias,
>>Dear group members,
>>
>>The honorable mrs. Ramirez makes it clear in her speech that the FTC
>>advocates a DNT that allows consumers to stop the collection of nearly
>>all behavioral data gathered across sites and not just the serving of
>>targeted ads. On behalf of the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party
>>I am echoing this criterium of collection limitation.
>>
>>As expressed on the call, time has come to make a choice whether Do Not
>>Track means Do Not Collect or Do Not Use. The privacy advocates
>>positions gear towards a collection limitation instrument, the
>>advertising industry positions gear towards a use limitation approach
>>that may well resemble or carbon copy the DAA code of conduct.
>>
>>Peter called for proposals to move forward. Before proposing a way to
>>move forward I will address three concerns.
>>
>>First, It is clear to me that trying to bridge the two positions is a
>>waste of our time. The two positions are so far apart that in terms of
>>game theory no optimal solution is possible. I expressed this on the
>>call today, when Peter thinking through the possible scenario's for the
>>upcoming face 2 face meeting.
>>
>>Second, it is also clear to me that the W3C process of the least
>>objectionable proposal, is not suited to bridge the gap between the
>>compliance positions. If a decision is based on choosing the least
>>objectionable proposal, it will show that the process is not a democracy
>>by votes. It also has an an important implication, namely that if the
>>chair is making such a decision, W3C becomes the problem owner. I find
>>the fact that W3C may become the problem owner a big risk for a multi
>>stakeholder process. It is a risk that concerns me.
>>
>>Third, time is ticking. Last Call is planned for July 2013 and this
>>status is an important deadline. It is unlikely that the group will
>>remain complete if the deadline of July 2013 is not met. It is a risk
>>that concerns me even more. Making a swift choice what the problem is
>>the group is willing to solve should be on the top of our issue list.
>>
>>I therefore propose a way to move forward. A wise way forward IMHO
>>would be to make an affirmative choice either 1. for collection
>>limitation or 2. for use limitation with clear and specific added value
>>to the existing self regulatory solutions or 3. for a NoGo (ie a
>>premature closure of the whole multi stakeholder exercise).
>>
>>This choice for 1 or 2 allows the disentanglement of many of the
>>interdependent issues that have held the process in a deadlock for too
>>long. This choice also allows for the breakdown of the problem at hand
>>into sub-issues, that can effectively be addressed in time and solved
>>before Last Call. Making this choice asap allows us to make use of our
>>valuable face 2 face time in Sunnyvale.
>>
>>Whether a choice for option 2 will be acceptable for the privacy
>>advocates remains to be seen. Although the time is ticking, there is a
>>window of opportunity for the stakeholders of the advertising industry
>>to do the right things to convince the privacy advocates of the added
>>value that DNT will bring to their self regulatory solutions.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Rob van Eijk
>>
>>John Simpson schreef op 2013-04-17 21:34:
>>> Colleagues,
>>> 
>>> FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramiez has just made an interesting speech to
>>> the American Advertising Federation that touches on our efforts to
>>> develop a Do Not Track standard.
>>> 
>>> I've attached it as a PDF file.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> John
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------
>>> 
>>> John M. Simpson
>>> Privacy Project Director
>>> Consumer Watchdog
>>> 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
>>> Santa Monica, CA, 90405
>>> 
>>> Tel: 310-392-7041
>>> Cell: 310-292-1902
>>> www.ConsumerWatchdog.org [1]
>>> john@consumerwatchdog.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Links:
>>> ------
>>> [1] http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 23:58:35 UTC