W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > October 2011

first parties

From: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 12:44:58 -0700
Message-Id: <B39373AC-1567-4D23-A98E-85745F5C5A08@aleecia.com>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
After our discussion yesterday on ISSUE-17 (Data use by 1st party,) here is what I think I heard of the two proposals on the table:
	- Jonathan is fine with the idea of a list of things first parties SHOULD (not must) do in response to receiving a DNT header, along the lines of what Tom proposed.
	- The remaining difference is that Tom wants to see improved notice as something companies MUST do to comply with DNT. 

Outside of scope for just this moment: (1) when things become more complex than an obvious first party (e.g. third party in a first party context, common branding, widgets, iFrame issues...) do we treat them or define them as first parties, or not? (ISSUE-49, ISSUE-60, ISSUE-62, ISSUE-65, ISSUE-73, ISSUE-77) (2) is there an obligation for first parties to send a response header? (ISSUE-51)

Note that a straw man draft is not the final word on the issues ahead of us, but ideally does represent a rough consensus view of where we are today. If we fail to reach any consensus, than the editors will take their best shot at creating something for the group to react to. We can, and should, note points where we lack consensus within the straw man document itself. 

PROPOSAL: include Tom's text in a straw man draft, but changing improved notice as something first parties SHOULD do. 

What say you all?

Received on Thursday, 6 October 2011 19:45:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:41 UTC