- From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 00:40:38 -0700
- To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
- Cc: Jules Polonetsky <julespol@futureofprivacy.org>, "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>, Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>, Carmen Balber <carmen@consumerwatchdog.org>
On Oct 26, 2011, at 12:04 AM, Jonathan Mayer wrote: > 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. I'd agree that this issue is in scope: how or whether a first-party degrades service speaks to practices for compliance with the user preference and could be part of a code of conduct for services that receive a DNT signal. I actually thought that ISSUE-93 was raised in part by Carmen (please correct me if I'm wrong) to question whether the Tracking Preference Expression (DNT) spec should enable first parties to know whether a user is browsing with DNT on for a particular third party, with the concern being that a first party might penalize that user for opting out. (This is connected to ISSUE-59.) It sounds like some participants definitely want first parties to know when a third party is receiving a DNT signal precisely for the opportunity to negotiate over it. But it seems to me like this question is in scope both for the compliance document and the preference expression document. Thanks, Nick
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 07:40:49 UTC