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

Re: DAA departing & moving forward

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:39:02 -0400
Message-ID: <52386986.50704@w3.org>
To: Ninja Marnau <nmarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de>
CC: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>, Lou Mastria <lou@aboutads.info>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On 9/17/2013 10:32 AM, Ninja Marnau wrote:
> Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Peter.
>
> I would like to ask what this departing means with regard to the DMA,
> IAB and the IAB members that participate in the WG. Is the DAA's
> decision independent from the DMA and IAB? What about Chris Meja's email
> with feedback for the plan forward from the IAB, DAA, DMA and NAI?

Matthias responded to Chris' input on a separate email today.  In it, he 
noted where their input has improved the proposed plan.  That was 
incorporated into his final plan which he also sent to the WG today.

>
> Ninja
>
> Am 17.09.2013 15:16, schrieb Peter Swire:
>>   
>>
>> To the Working Group:
>>
>>
>> I note with sadness but not surprise the decision today by the Digital
>> Advertising Alliance to withdraw from the Tracking Protection Working
>> Group of the World Wide Web Consortium.  In announcing their departure,
>> they chose my actions as the most convenient excuse for leaving the
>> process: “Unfortunately, these efforts were rejected out of hand by TPWG
>> co-chair Peter Swire, who jettisoned the long-accepted W3C procedure in
>> order to anoint his own way forward.”
>>
>>   
>>
>> I share the frustration in the DAA message with the inability of the
>> Working Group to achieve better results.  I believe a fair review of the
>> history, however, shows that the views of the DAA and its members were
>> valued and included in months of hard work together in the Group:
>>
>>   
>>
>> (1) I met individually with the leadership of each DAAmember during the
>> “listening tour” in late 2012, after I was named co-chair.
>>
>>   
>>
>> (2) A major part of the agenda at the February Face-to-Face, in
>> Cambridge, was based on the DAA proposal concerning ways to limit access
>> to a user’s lifetime browsing history.
>>
>>   
>>
>> (3) DAA proposals and language were discussed in detail during weekly
>> teleconferences for the next several months.  Indeed, a repeated theme
>> on the list during this period was the concern from consumer advocates
>> that a disproportionateamount of time of the Group was being spent on
>> DAA proposals.
>>
>>   
>>
>> (4) In the lead-up to the May Face-to-Face in California, there were
>> intensive negotiations on what became known as the Draft Framework,
>> which became the agenda for our three-day meeting.  The DAA was deeply
>> enough involved in these negotiations that its General Counsel, Stu
>> Ingis, presented the Draft Framework to the Group in one of its calls.
>>
>>   
>>
>> (5) Coming out of the May meeting, the full group, including the DAA,
>> issued a consensus document that enough progress had been made that we
>> should continue to work toward the long-agreed Last Call deadline of the
>> end of July.
>>
>>   
>>
>> (6) As an effort to have one clear text that would be the focus of the
>> Group’s efforts, we then had the summer process to create proposed
>> language and then comments on a base text.  Among the change proposals,
>> by far the greatest amount of time on the Group calls was devoted to the
>> text proposed by the DAA and those associated with it.
>>
>>   
>>
>> (7) Both co-chairs, supported by W3C staff, then issued approximately 40
>> single-spaced pages of decision documents.  These documents contained a
>> massive number of footnotes and citations to the comments submitted by
>> Working Group members.  Based on the record developed by the full Group,
>> these documents explained reasons why the June Draft would remain the
>> base text rather than the proposal submitted by the DAA and those
>> associated with it.  In brief, the criteria for a standard that we
>> discussed in Cambridge, based on the overall record, would not be met by
>> the proposal submitted by the DAA and others.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Based on this history, the DAA views were simply not rejected “out of hand.”
>>
>>   
>>
>> My own view is that the Working Group does not have a path to consensus
>> that includes large blocs of stakeholders with views as divergent as the
>> DAA, on the one hand, and those seeking stricter privacy rules, on the
>> other.  I devoted my time as co-chair to trying to find creative ways to
>> achieve consumer choice and privacy while also enabling a thriving
>> commercial Internet.  I no longer see any workable path to a standard
>> that will gain active support from both wings of the Working Group.
>>
>>   
>>
>> When participants don’t get the outcome they want on substance, they
>> often blame the procedure.  As an imperfect human being, and one working
>> within the W3C processes for the first time, I am sure that I could have
>> done better at various points on procedure.  The actual procedure that
>> led to the July decision came directly from my close discussions with
>> W3C staff, and used the mechanism for resolving a disputed issue that
>> the Working Group established and used before I became co-chair.
>>
>>   
>>
>> I intensely share the frustration that all the hard work by members of
>> the Working Group has not created a consensus path forward.  I believe
>> there is consensus in the Working Group that members have worked very
>> hard, and I worked very hard, to find apath forward.  I put almost all
>> of my other professional work on hold, at financial cost to myself, to
>> try to find a solution on Do Not Track.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Going forward, there are cogent reasons for stakeholders to continue to
>> work, inside and outside of W3C, to develop standards and good practices
>> for commercial privacy on the Internet.
>>
>>   
>>
>> We knew coming in that this was a hard problem.  It remains a hard
>> problem. The procedures at W3C this summer are not the reason that it
>> became hard.
>>
>>   
>>
>> With best wishes to all of you,
>>
>>   
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>   
>>
>>   
>>
>> P.S.  I expect to be generally off-line today and much of this week.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Prof. Peter P. Swire
>> Nancy J. and Lawrence P. Huang Professor
>> Law and Ethics Program
>> Scheller College of Business
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>
>> 240.994.4142
>> www.peterswire.net
>>
>>
>> From: Lou Mastria <lou@aboutads.info <mailto:lou@aboutads.info>>
>> Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 5:17 AM
>> To: Jaffe Jeff <jeff@w3.org <mailto:jeff@w3.org>>,
>> "public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
>> (public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)"
>> <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
>> Subject: DAA departing & moving forward
>> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
>> Resent-Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 5:17 AM
>>
>>
>> Dear Mr. Jaffe:
>>
>>
>> After serious consideration, the leadership of the Digital Advertising
>> Alliance (DAA) has agreed that the DAA will withdraw from future
>> participation in the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Tracking Protection
>> Working Group (TPWG).  After more than two years of good-faith effort
>> and having contributed significant resources, the DAA no longer believes
>> that the TPWG is capable of fostering the development of a workable “do
>> not track” (“dnt”) solution. As we depart W3C and TPWG, DAA will focus
>> its resources on convening its own forum to evaluate how browser-based
>> signals can be used meaningfully to address consumer privacy.
>>
>>
>> During more than two years since the W3C began its attempt at a dnt
>> standard, the DAA has delivered real tools to millions of consumers. It
>> has grown participation; enhanced transparency with more than a trillion
>> ad impressions per month delivered with the DAA’s Icon making notice and
>> choice information available within one-click of the ad; educated
>> millions of consumers and provided browser-based persistent plug ins.
>> <http://www.aboutads.info/PMC>  The DAA has also succeeded in applying
>> its principles to all of the participants in the digital ecosystem.
>> Furthermore, we have expanded these consumer safeguards into 30
>> countries and clarified how the DAA’s Principles apply in the mobile Web
>> and app environments.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Going forward, the DAA intends to focus its time and efforts on growing
>> this already-successful consumer choice program in “desktop,” mobile and
>> in-app environments. The DAA is confident that such efforts will yield
>> greater advances in consumer privacy and industry self-regulation than
>> would its continued participation at the W3C.
>>
>> Despite extension after extension of its charter year after year by the
>> W3C, the TPWG has yet to reach agreement on the most elementary and
>> material issues facing the group.  These open items include fundamental
>> issues and key definitions that have been discussed by this group since
>> its inception without reaching consensus, including:
>>
>> ·         Defining a harm or problem it seeks to prevent.
>>
>> ·         Defining the term “tracking”.
>>
>> ·         Identifying limitations on the use of unique identifiers.
>>
>> ·         Determining the effect of user choice.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Concerned about the TPWG’s inability to resolve such basic issues, the
>> DAA wrote a letter to you on October 2, 2012
>> <http://www.aboutads.info/blog/press-release-daa-issues-open-letter-w3c-actions-working-group-threaten-ad-supported-internet>,
>> expressing its strong concern with the W3C’s foray into setting public
>> policy standards.  In particular, the letter noted that the W3C “has
>> been designed to build consensus around complex technology issues, not
>> complex public policy matters.” In response, despite the turmoil evident
>> at that time, you personally assured us that appropriate procedures and
>> policies would be applied to the process and the W3C’s retention of
>> Professor Swire would settle and bring legitimacy to the process.
>>
>>
>> In the ensuing eight months that led up to the July 2013 deadline
>> imposed on the TPWG, the DAA worked in good faith with other
>> stakeholders, supporting proposals consistent with recommendations from
>> the U.S. Administration and the former chairman of the Federal Trade
>> Commission. Unfortunately, these efforts were rejected out of hand by
>> TPWG co-chair Peter Swire, who jettisoned the long-accepted W3C
>> procedure in order to anoint his own path forward.  As others in the
>> working group have substantiated, as a result of Swire’s actions there
>> is no longer a legitimate TPWG procedure.  Jonathan Mayer, commenting on
>> the working process
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0601.html>,
>> stated, “We do not have clear rules of decision.  And even if we were to
>> have procedural commitments, they could be unilaterally cast aside at
>> any time. This is not process: this is the absence of process.” Roy T.
>> Fielding, Senior Principal Scientist at Adobe, highlighted
>> the dictatorial approach taken by chairs
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0464.html> who
>> have eschewed participant input and subrogated participants’ right to
>> vote on issues.
>>
>>
>> In recent weeks, you have indicated to TPWG participants that you have
>> no intent to revisit acts or processes (or the lack thereof) that
>> occurred leading up to July 2013, and instead plan to move forward.
>> However, it is not possible to move forward without an accounting for
>> the previous flagrant disregard for procedure.
>>
>>
>> Today, parties on all sides agree that the TPWG is not a sensible use of
>> W3C resources and that the process will not lead to a workable result.
>> For example, Jonathan Mayer, in his recent letter of resignation from
>> the TPWG, stated
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0601.html>:
>> “Given the lack of a viable path to consensus, I can no longer justify
>> the substantial time, travel, and effort associated with continuing in
>> the Working Group.” John Simpson, the director of the Consumer
>> Watchdog’s privacy project, commented on the news of the departure of
>> TPWG co-chairman Professor Swire
>> <http://www.law360.com/privacy/articles/468512?nl_pk=0c277e2d-1bd7-44e8-80c2-e6cfa8deb42a&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=privacy>:
>> “Peter Swire gave it a good shot, but I don’t think that he or anybody
>> can get this group to a general consensus.” These participants and
>> others who previously supported the TPWG now conclude that the process
>> has devolved into an exercise in frustration on all sides without any
>> meaningful increase in consumer choice or transparency.
>>
>>
>> The DAA agrees with these parties on this matter. Therefore, rather than
>> continue to work in a forum that has failed, we intend to commit our
>> resources and time in participating in efforts that can achieve results
>> while enhancing the consumer digital experience. The DAA will
>> immediately convene a process to evaluate how browser-based signals can
>> be used to meaningfully address consumer privacy. The DAA looks forward
>> to working with browsers, consumer groups, advertisers, marketers,
>> agencies, and technologists. This DAA-led process will be a more
>> practical use of our resources than to continue to participate at the W3C.
>>
>>
>> With the departure of the latest TPWG co-chair as well as a key staff
>> member, and no definitive process to move forward, the DAA recommends
>> that that the W3C should not attempt to resurrect a process that has
>> clearly reached the end of its useful life.
>>
>>
>> The DAA will continue to move forward in its own area of expertise,
>> advancing consumer control, transparency, and other critical practices
>> through its own program.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Lou Mastria
>> P:+1 347 770 0322
>> E: Lou@AboutAds.info <mailto:Lou@AboutAds.info>
>> Twitter: @lmastria / @daausa
>>
>> Did you know that DAA released new mobile guidance?
>>
>> Get the PDF here: http://bit.ly/DAAMobile
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 14:39:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:18 UTC