- From: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:07:34 -0400
- To: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>
- CC: Jules Polonetsky <julespol@futureofprivacy.org>, "'Amy Colando (LCA)'" <acolando@microsoft.com>, 'Karl Dubost' <karld@opera.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
To put this in more stark terms, it is out of scope for this standard to implement controls on the pricing of digital content and services. On 10/26/11 9:40 AM, Mike Zaneis wrote: > I agree with Jules, Amy, and David on this point. Sorry to use the +1 but I do believe that the more input we get from participants the closer we will be to closing out certain issues. > > Just to push back on whether ISSUE-93 is out of scope or not, it seems strange to me that a W3C technical specification would provide "permissions" for basic business operations. A DNT "technical" standard that "allows" millions of businesses/publishers to offer their content and services in this way or that way seems fundamentally out of scope. > > Mike Zaneis > SVP& General Counsel > Interactive Advertising Bureau > (202) 253-1466 > > Follow me on Twitter @mikezaneis > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-tracking-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tracking-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jules Polonetsky > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 11:59 PM > To: 'Amy Colando (LCA)'; 'Karl Dubost'; 'David Wainberg' > Cc: public-tracking@w3.org > Subject: RE: Propose to drop from the strawman: ISSUE-93 > > 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. >
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 18:08:00 UTC