Re: Request for comments on priorities for DNT

The group's top priority must be arriving at a consensus compliance standard. We're here because polite, tailored, unified, and effective control over third-party tracking is the best outcome for the entire web ecosystem. We need to button down both the Do Not Track policy and technology to accomplish that aim.

We have made good progress on the technical components—but there was never any doubt that we would. The technical specification remains unfinished chiefly owing to dependencies on the compliance standard and the practical futility of the preference-signaling technology in isolation from the compliance policy. I would wager that, once the compliance standard is settled, we could lock the group in a room with caffeine and have a decent protocol and API by morning.

It may be that a consensus compliance standard is impossible. But before taking our chances by punting the issue to policymakers and browser vendors, I think there are at least two procedural steps we should try.

First, we need to have technical conversations about compliance. I have great respect for the legal, policy, and management representatives from companies and trade groups. But if we're going to reach an agreement, we have to get past high-level talking points. We need to analyze, in careful detail, what the actual information needs of businesses are how to accommodate those needs while protecting user privacy. Those are fundamentally technical conversations, and we cannot have them without deeply knowledgeable industry engineers in the room.

Second, we have to hear from publishers. Everyone in the group wants to foster a thriving web economy. It can be difficult to separate the rhetoric from the reality, however, so long as we're not learning from first-party websites. I believe the group's time would be well spent understanding the positions of both large and small publishers.

Jonathan


On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Peter Swire 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 (http://www.peterswire.net)
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>