RE: Request for comments on priorities for DNT

Recommended Working Group Priorities:

*  The Working Group should focus its efforts on completing the TPE (tech spec) as this document has the most consensus, is already near completion, and industry should implement according to local legal and self-regulatory frameworks in place of a W3C policy document.  A DNT response resource should be permitted to convey to the user which local legal and self-regulatory framework a Server is relying on to implement DNT.

*  Those setting the DNT signal MUST make themselves known to Servers or else DNT is too easily gamed and there are no regulatory 'hooks' for user agents (or now intermediaries - in violation of the draft standard) to require appropriate transparency.

*  Servers must be able to respond to invalid DNT signals as such and convey DNT alternatives to users through a DNT response resource.


- Shane

Shane Wiley
VP, Privacy & Data Governance
Yahoo!


------

From: Peter Swire [mailto:peter@peterswire.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 1:43 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Request for comments on priorities for DNT


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> <http://www.peterswire.net>