Re: Way forward for TPWG...

I am not sure we need a call.

I agree we should publish the CRs and hope/wait for implementation and implementation demand.

Whether it helps or not to have a WG formally around but dormant during the CR period seems to be a tricky question. Does a WG exist in the forest if no-one hears it talk?



> On Jul 18, 2016, at 1:13 , Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear re-vived WG Participants,
> 
> 
> thanks a lot for the lively discussion. Since we are 95% done, IMHO if
> in doubt, I would rather be safe and push our recommendations over the
> finish line.
> Another point is that so far on the list, I only heard participants to
> express a desire to finish what we started.
> 
> The BIG concern I have is whether we have anough manpower to do the
> final edits.
> We need sufficient contributors (and some time from our editors) to do
> these final touches.
> 
> Questions (to me personally or to the public list)::
> - Feel free to express your willingness to help write, decide, edit our
> documents   
> - Does anybody objects to going forward and has substantiated concerns
> why we should not?
> - I would like to see browser implementation and web-site support. Any
> browsers willing continue to support the DNT signals and/or the
> user-granted exceptions?
> 
> Any other feedback is welcome, too. I suggest that we also set up a call
> to discuss the inputs.
> 
> Suggested time:
> Wednesday July 27, 9-10am pacific (noon-1pm eastern, 6pm-7pm Germany)
> 
> 
> Regards,
> matthias
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am 18.07.2016 09:07, schrieb Walter van Holst:
>> On 2016-07-18 00:57, Lee Tien wrote:
>>> EFF has been unengaged in the WG for a few years now, because we
>>> didn’t think there was enough interest in DNT by all stakeholders, so
>>> we developed our own tool (Privacy Badger) that is consistent with our
>>> principles.
>> 
>> Like EFF, I haven't been engaged much with the WG in the last two
>> years. But like Rob, I think wrapping it up now is very likely to turn
>> out as unfortunately timed. With the GDPR entering into force within
>> two years (and it contains a provision specifically meant for DNT) and
>> the upcoming review of the e-Privacy Directive, this WG may very well
>> turn out to be more relevant than its participants have thought
>> lately. Even without overwhelming adoption of the DNT mechanism so
>> far, the uptake of ad blockers show that the days of an unfettered
>> predatory advertising ecosystem come to an end. DNT may very well be a
>> piece in solving the puzzle of how to deal with consent instead of
>> running roughshod over end-users interests.
>> 
>>> I also do not understand the present status of ad-blocking under EU
>>> law (I know there was a recent decision but don’t know what it said).
>> 
>> There has been no decision under EU law. There have been decisions
>> under German law. And for the most part those decisions say that
>> ad-blocking is fine. Some cases revolve around the rather dodgy
>> business model of Eyeo. Which interestingly enough is partnering for
>> Flattr to introduce microtransactions as an alternative to ads.
>> 
>>> But our position is that these two points—that the EU is in a
>>> transition, and that ad-blocking is increasing industry interest in
>>> DNT—if valid, could well justify continued work by the WG.  Curious
>>> what others think.
>> 
>> It corresponds to my line of thinking.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Walter
>> 
> 
> 

Dave Singer

singer@mac.com

Received on Monday, 18 July 2016 23:06:19 UTC