Re: Propose to drop from the strawman: ISSUE-93

I'm comfortable with the standard allowing (explicitly or implicitly) publishers to offer tiered service based on a user's Do Not Track status.

What I'm not comfortable with is the increasing frequency with which stakeholders are claiming issues are "out of scope."  As I read it, and I think in any plain reading, the working group charter is very broad.  A rough parallel for the American law fans at the table: claiming something is "out of scope" is roughly akin to claiming it's unconstitutional.  You should believe, and be prepared to defend, that not only is it a wrong decision, but it's a decision that clearly falls outside the working group's zone of discretion.


Jules - I think the type of degradation this issue addresses is where a publisher intentionally offers lesser service to Do Not Track users.  But you're quite right, of course, to note that there may be unintentional or incidental forms of degradation.

On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:58 PM, Jules Polonetsky wrote:

> Note that a typical degrading effect might be the very common situation
> where a cookie is used to frequency cap at 1 time a pop-up or full page ad
> takeover.  A site might allow its third party adserver to trigger a full
> page ad or pop up ad but insist that it happen only the first time an
> individual visits the site or no more than once a week.  Yes, the site could
> work around and track in first party context, but they have outsourced all
> their adserving as most sites have.   I can think of other examples where a
> third party cookie may be used for the individuals benefit - and where site
> work arounds are possible, but could easily be ignored by the site,
> especially if a small minority of users are affected.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-tracking-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tracking-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Amy Colando (LCA)
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 11:34 PM
> To: Karl Dubost; David Wainberg
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Propose to drop from the strawman: ISSUE-93
> 
> +1
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-tracking-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tracking-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Karl Dubost
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:14 PM
> To: David Wainberg
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Propose to drop from the strawman: ISSUE-93
> 
> 
> Le 25 oct. 2011 à 17:17, David Wainberg a écrit :
>> ISSUE-93: Should 1st parties be able to degrade a user experience or
> charge money for content based on DNT (It appears in 6.1 of the Compliance
> and Scope doc.)
>> 
>> This is well out of scope of this standard, and should be dropped from the
> strawman document. The DNT standard should be limited to particular cases of
> data collection and use. It's not the role of the standard to require
> businesses to require or suggest broad changes to a company's business
> practices (such as giving away content and services for free) that aren't
> directly related to implementation of the standard and handling of the
> relevant data.
> 
> 
> Seconded.
> That said, it is useful non normative comment for implementers.
> 
> -- 
> Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
> Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 07:05:43 UTC