RE: first parties

Clay,

"This standard imposes no requirements on first-party websites.  A first-party website MAY take steps to protect user privacy in responding to a Do Not Track request and SHOULD provide appropriate notice in what manner they support Do Not Track."

I should have called it out more expressly but it was my assumption the standard will outline "appropriate notice" for any party (primarily 3rd party) to disclose their support of DNT so I left it as an open element yet to be defined in the latest draft of this statement.

- Shane

From: Clay Webster [mailto:clay.webster@cbsinteractive.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 5:58 PM
To: Shane Wiley; Amy Colando (LCA); Aleecia M. McDonald; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: first parties

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote:

With Tom's Addition:
"This standard imposes no requirements on first-party websites.  A first-party website MAY take steps to protect user privacy in responding to a Do Not Track request and SHOULD improve notice with respect to DNT."

I agree with the Initial Statement but feel that Tom's request was out of scope to suggest first parties must improve notice across the board (not just with respect to DNT).

I would suggest the following (hopefully a winning middle-ground):
"This standard imposes no requirements on first-party websites.  A first-party website MAY take steps to protect user privacy in responding to a Do Not Track request and SHOULD provide appropriate notice in what manner they support Do Not Track if they chose to do so."

I could agree with this.  I think the "if they chose to do so" could be left off given that it's a SHOULD.

What form(s) would "appropriate notice" normally take?

--cw

Clay Webster
Associate Vice President, Platform Infrastructure
T 908-541-3724   F 908-575-7474
1200 Route 22 East, Bridgewater NJ 08807

[https://gadgets.cbsinteractive.com/resources/cbs-interactive-logo.gif]