Re: action-231, issue-153 requirements on other software that sets DNT headers

On Aug 22, 2012, at 17:33 , Mike Zaneis <> wrote:

> Of course positions are relevant. When the most valuable company in the history of the world and a key gatekeeper of the Internet dismisses an important issue in this process because "a site can simple deny access", and that assumption misses the fundamental point that the spec is focused on third parties and not publishers.  I want to know the underpinnings for that misguided dismissal. 

I have a suspicion that we might have different scenarios in mind; see my previous message.

> All of this is especially important given the not-so-veiled threats from Apple at out Seattle face-to-face meeting that they would, "take other actions" against third parties if this group did not come to agreement on DNT. Their position is central to the debate when we are having substantive discussions and they seek to dismiss a competitive industry's economic interests and livelihood. 

I was not in the room in Seattle, but I was listening and supporting my colleagues.  I rather think you were not in the room either, as what you write here does not reflect what was said, and accusations that statements were threats seem out of place on this mailing list.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 23:33:14 UTC