RE: TPWG Charter; urge it remain

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Nick,
Maybe not a F2F but there are things to discuss, so maybe a webconf call?
For example. it is problem that browsers are not implementing the API (or removing implementations that were working perfectly fine) both because of performance issues (for expiration caching you need to use the Vary header which cannot work if there are UID cookies) and because the TCS Scope section requires it. We still have OOBC but that needs implementers to control the response headers (to return Tk: C) which is often a problem. I suggested http-equiv meta tags once, we could talk about that. We could also discuss how DNT could help with Privacy Shield and/or “adblocker armageddon”.
The current draft DNT implementation guide for sites is here :
https://trackingprotection.github.io/Implementation/DNTGuide/
I put a link to it from the wiki (as Wendy suggested):
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG
The html for it is in this public GitHub repo (in DNTGuide/index.html):
https://github.com/TrackingProtection/Implementation
There is a team with write access, if anyone wants to join email me, or create an issue in the repo.
I have a new features document that’s almost finished (it suggests meta tag support among other things) , and I will post that up.
Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: Nick Doty [mailto:npdoty@ischool.berkeley.edu]
Sent: 16 July 2016 22:04
To: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>; Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: TPWG Charter; urge it remain

*** gpg4o | The email has been signed by an unknown key: 40203EE90BBAB306 ***

I don't think a TPWG f2f meeting is useful at the moment, because the Working Group has completed our work on writing and editing the specifications. Both are Candidate Recommendations now; we don't have other spec issues to work through.

What still needs to be done is implementation, testing and gathering information on those implementations. As I've been getting contacted regarding implementation status and hearing interest in implementation, I do think it's valuable to keep using this mailing list and updating the relevant wiki page with that information. I don't feel strongly as to whether that's part of an officially chartered Working Group or not.

If there is interest in working on supporting documents, that could be useful. I'd mentioned on the list earlier that an implementation guide for those servers who want an easy document to follow regarding supporting DNT would get some interest, and I think Mike had started a draft. David Singer had described earlier that a document explaining DNT in friendly terms to the end user could also be valuable.

If people want to work on those documents, or want to work on subsequent versions of DNT to match implementations, I would help out as best I can as a volunteer.

Cheers,
Nick

> On Jul 15, 2016, at 12:54 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com> wrote:
>
> "On hold" and "dead" look remarkably similar. I am curious, what would the difference be, other than semantics?
>
> I can see advantages to killing DNT outright and admitting failure, or better yet to buckling down and finishing the remaining work. Letting DNT lapse into "on hold" seems the worst whimpering death possible.
>
> Perhaps it is time for a f2f with the goal of finishing the documents.
>
>     Aleecia
>
>> On Jul 15, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the input, Jeff, Mike, and Craig.
>>
>> As part of the W3C Process[1], the Advisory Board has asked the W3C Team
>> to get Advisory Committee review of charter extensions. That means
>> asking the W3C membership overall (not just those participating in the
>> group) whether they support renewal. Is this a place they want W3C to
>> continue expending attention and resources?
>>
>> Before I raise that question with the Advisory Committee, I'd like to
>> hear from a few more people, in particular, whether we have testers and
>> editors willing to update the specs to make sure what's written matches
>> implementations, and to remove from normative status features that have
>> not been implemented sufficiently.
>>
>> I don't see the alternative to be walking away so much as putting work
>> on hold until we have a demonstration that further work will actually be
>> useful to the Web's users. Until we see more pressure for Web sites and
>> Web applications to adopt DNT -- and respond to users DNT:1 requests --
>> it seems hard to "Recommend" that users keep sending DNT signals into
>> the ether for them to be ignored.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Wendy
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#CharterReview
>>
>>> On 07/15/2016 02:32 PM, Craig Spiezle wrote:
>>> The Online Trust Alliance agrees.  To this point we are seeing an update in adoption and if we walk away today, we risk sending the wrong message.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org]
>>> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 10:51 AM
>>> To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
>>> Cc: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) <public-tracking@w3.org>
>>> Subject: Re: TPWG Charter; urge it remain
>>>
>>> CDD urges W3C to keep this group’s status active.  It is critically important, given the changes to the market we are seeing in both N. America and Europe especially, that W3C's Do Not Track initiative is ongoing during this period.  The Charter should be renewed; otherwise privacy and the public lose out.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Jeff Chester
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Executive Director
>>> Center for Digital Democracy
>>> Washington, DC.
>>> www. democraticmedia.org
>>> jeff@democraticmedia.org
>>> 202-494-7100
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 15, 2016, at 12:05 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi TPWG participants,
>>>>
>>>> Seeing limited conversation here, and no input from adopters of the
>>>> technology, I lean toward not rechartering the group at this time,
>>>> while continuing to track implementation and adoption.
>>>>
>>>> We can keep using the public-tracking mailing list and wikis, under
>>>> the auspices of the Privacy Interest Group (PING, join for broader
>>>> discussion, if you like, at https://www.w3.org/Privacy/).
>>>>
>>>> The CR documents we published will of course remain available for
>>>> reference, implementation, and use:
>>>> TPE: https://www.w3.org/TR/tracking-dnt/
>>>> TCS: https://www.w3.org/TR/tracking-compliance/
>>>>
>>>> If interest in DNT picks up, we can reopen the Working Group to
>>>> complete the interop testing and editing necessary to take the specs
>>>> forward to Recommendation.
>>>>
>>>> How does that sound?
>>>>
>>>> --Wendy
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/01/2016 07:39 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
>>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for the positive responses. It is a good point that people who
>>>>> want to implement DNT better get guidance to do so in an interoperable way.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would also like to hear the opposite opinions: Are there objections
>>>>> to extending the charter and finalizing the documents?
>>>>> Is there a downside to extending the charter, reviewing
>>>>> implementations, and publishing a final recommendation?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> matthias
>>>>> Am 01.07.2016 00:10, schrieb Craig Spiezle:
>>>>>> I third it.  As noted we are seeing an uptake of sites disclosing if they Honor DNT and a renewed interest among publishers.   Honoring Do Not track is much suddenly become more attractive then Ad blockers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 11:14 AM
>>>>>> To: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
>>>>>> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org; 'Wendy Seltzer' <wseltzer@w3.org>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: TPWG Charter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I second a request to extend the charter. Now that implementers and testers have picked up DNT, it is time to further explore use cases that we may have overlooked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> Rob van Eijk
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike O'Neill schreef op 2016-06-30 19:57:
>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With the tightening of the requirement for consent, the right to
>>>>>>> object, right to amend/modify/erase driven by the GDPR in Europe
>>>>>>> and the (initially Transatlantic) PrivacyShield, makes it advisable
>>>>>>> that the charter for this group be extended for at least another
>>>>>>> year. The building-blocks in the TPE, for example the Tracking
>>>>>>> Status Resource, support many of these requirements, and can
>>>>>>> clearly be enhanced to support the others, and this WG is the
>>>>>>> obvious place where these can be discussed and hopefully standardised.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The rising popularity of Ad Blockers and other Content Blocking
>>>>>>> applications, which can be destructive in the way they arbitrarily
>>>>>>> inhibit aspects of the web platform, also point to the need for
>>>>>>> protocol elements that can communicate user preferences, and the
>>>>>>> TPE or something similar to it would help with this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The TPE has been implemented on several clients and servers as
>>>>>>> described in the Implementation Report
>>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/TPE_Implementation_Report
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Tracking Exception API has been supported natively and in user
>>>>>>> agent extensions, and has been supported by thousands of sites,
>>>>>>> including those run by major consumer brand companies, in most
>>>>>>> European countries since 2013. A number of these sites are
>>>>>>> extending their support for the TPE protocol elements in the near future.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hope the W3C recognises this and extends the group charter for
>>>>>>> another year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike O'Neill
>>>>>>> Technical Director
>>>>>>> Baycloud Systems
>>>>>>> Oxford Centre for Innovation
>>>>>>> New Road
>>>>>>> Oxford
>>>>>>> OX1 1BY
>>>>>>> Tel. 01865 735619
>>>>>>> Fax: 01865 261401
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office) Policy
>>>> Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>>>> https://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office)
>> Policy Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using gpg4o v3.5.54.6734 - http://www.gpg4o.com/
Charset: utf-8
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=cc9Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----