Re: Request for comments on priorities for DNT

Focus on the technical side of the spec. We aren't that far off from actual
consensus, and when we've hit snags on this side of the spec we've had
largely good luck on resolving these issues without voting or forcing
things on people. If we can get a standardized mechanism for expressing
user intent and negotiating exceptions it would be a meaningful step
forward vs the status quo. Despite lots of hard work by many parties, I
can't honestly say the same about the compliance part of the spec, and I
personally don't believe that forcing something through a series of votes
is going to result in a spec with high adoption.
On Nov 29, 2012 10:22 AM, "Peter Swire" <peter@peterswire.net> wrote:

> To Tracking Protection Working Group:
>
> First, let me once again echo the thanks that many of you have given to
> Aleecia for her service with this group.  I have found Aleecia unfailingly
> gracious and fair in her dealings with me, and I am glad she is planning to
> continue to share her insights with the group as we move forward.
>
> As mentioned on the weekly call today, to assist me in getting up to
> speed, the Working Group chairs solicit input from participants, with
> comments due by noon Eastern time on Wednesday, December 5.  The intent
> would be to discuss these comments on the December 12 call.
>
> We ask that you emphasize no more than 3 points and do your submission in
> no more than 300 words.  (To help you be brief, we will prioritize in our
> reading the comments that comply with the limits.)
>
> As you make these points, we are interested in what you think are the
> priority points for the co-chairs to consider, including: areas of
> agreement, what principles should guide our work, and what will best bring
> the new co-chair up to speed.
>
> (If this request for comments feels vague or not precise enough, my
> apologies.  It perhaps is a sign of my lack of experience with defining
> problems within the W3C procedures.  The basic idea, however, should be
> clear -- what are the priority things for the new co-chair to know.)
>
> Please post your comments to this email list.
>
> In looking forward to working with you all,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> Professor Peter P. Swire
> C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
>     Ohio State University
> 240.994.4142
> www.peterswire.net
>