W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2013

Re: DNT: Agenda for Wednesday call, February 20

From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:03:49 -0800
Message-Id: <20A27835-CBE8-470D-8951-D2EAB608B30C@aleecia.com>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
A few people have asked, so to quickly recap, the process for re-opening closed topics requires:
	- new information the group has not considered
	- new text proposal in standards language

The chairs then have the option to re-open, at their discretion.

When people writing new proposals bring those forward, they should please be good enough to also explain what new information they are bringing before the group. Then we can ensure the TPWG has not previously discussed a topic at length, and have a better chance of not just re-plowing the same ground. 


On Feb 20, 2013, at 6:28 AM, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org> wrote:

> Corrected link: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0132.html
> Sent from mobile, please excuse curtness and typos
> Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org> wrote:
> At the Bellevue meeting last summer, it was agreed that we would drop market research and product improvement from the standard as permitted uses.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0341.html
> I disagree with Peter's decision to reopen the issue, but I am willing to consider proposals for a narrowly crafted research exception.  There are certainly societal benefits to be realized from understanding how people surf from site to site.  For the time being, I still think that a DNT:1 signal should serve as a request to opt out of such cross-site research, and I have yet to see a proposal that does not allow for boundless collection and retention (even if for admittedly laudable purposes).
> From: Mike Zaneis [mailto:mike@iab.net]
> To: Walter van Holst [mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl]
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org [mailto:public-tracking@w3.org]
> Sent: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 07:15:50 -0500
> Subject: Re: DNT: Agenda for Wednesday call, February 20
> I'm not sure where this view that there is limited support for the market research exception comes from, aside from David Singer's recent comments, the rest of the industry participants support this exception. As Peter has pointed out, it is a vital component of the existing DAA program and we support extension to any W3C standard. Therefore, this is a very valid discussion. 
> Mike Zaneis
> SVP & General Counsel, IAB
> (202) 253-1466
> On Feb 20, 2013, at 6:53 AM, "Walter van Holst" <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > On 2/19/13 8:54 PM, Peter Swire wrote:
> >> David:
> >> 
> >> 1. "Market research" has been proposed as a permitted use, to go into
> >> the text of the spec. It is an important topic in practice for a range
> >> of companies. The DAA code, which overlaps in its coverage with DNT
> >> issues, has an exception/permitted use for "market research." To get
> >> adoption of DNT, getting clarity on "market research" seems entirely
> >> relevant.
> > 
> > Dear Peter,
> > 
> > Given the very limited support for the idea of market research (for any
> > common understood idea of market research) as a permitted use in this
> > group, I'm not sure whether it is beneficial to the credibility of the
> > process to try to define it in this standard.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Walter
> > 
> > 
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 01:04:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:04 UTC