Re: Monday Call - Kick-off Call for Objections for Issue 22; review of edits for other issues

Hi Folks,


thanks a lot. We are now down to a final issue to resolve!

As to the CfO process below, i would like you to submit a final list of
text proposals to resolve issue 22. Question is: what additional fields
(if any) should be added to the TSR to simplify EU compliance. Proposing
"no fields" is a viable option.

Please submit your proposals before the next call and be ready to
present them. The time-line

- Until May 29: We freeze the alternative text proposals to go into the
  CfO
- Until June 05: We collect substantiated objections using our web-tool
- Until June 12: The chairs will use the CfO process to determine
  consensus.


Regards,
matthias



On 18.05.2017 18:28, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> 
> unfortunately, our agreement seems to have unraveled. As a consequence,
> I now would like move to a Call for Objection on Issue 22.
> Note that this puts us on a defined timeline for completion (while we
> still have 2 weeks to converge on a single consensus proposal).
> 
> The procedure is described here (apologies that it is a bit dated):
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/1309-plan.html
> 
> The general idea is:
> Until Week 1: (this call):
> - We freeze the list of texts that are used as alternatives (should be
> smaller than the initial list)
> Until Week 2: May 29.
> - Anyone in the group can submit "substantiated objections" (no need to
> have voting right).
> Until Week 3: June 05
> - The chairs determine consensus as described in the document.
> 
> So far, I have recently seen 2 Text Alternatives:
> 1. otherParties array (by Rob): Machine-readable list of third parties
> for transparency purposes only
> 2. otherParties as URL that points to some non-machine-readable page
> that describes the third parties (by Shane).
> 
> Alternatives that I heard and that I would like to drop (unless someone
> sustains support):
> - No change at all (by Shane; Probably superseded by (2))?
> - Combinations with some API to get some additional information on what
> third parties did not receive DNT;0 even thoug a site-wide exception exists.
> 
> On Monday, I would like to finalize a list of text proposals that go
> into the CfO (default is those two).
> 
> Regards,
> matthias
>  
> 
>

Received on Monday, 22 May 2017 16:38:24 UTC