Re: Request for comments on priorities for DNT

I apologize that I won't be able to make the call, as I'm going to be on a
train halfway between Zürich and Munich. That said, I have found this
thread interesting (personally).

1. There is a clear split between people who believe that the TPE spec
would be useful without the compliance doc (presumably paired with
self-regulation or local legislation), and those who believe the TPE would
not be useful without an associated compliance document.
2. There is similarly a split between people who believe we can move
forward without defining tracking, and those who believe we can move
forward without defining tracking (though possibly imposing some additional
requirements if we go that route as Berin suggested in his email.)
3. Some ideas of particular approaches combined with a realization that
people aren't going to jump at unproven things (I thought Aleecia's summary
here was nice)

I'm not sure where exactly this leaves us. Aleecia suggests we not forget
about either UAs, servers, or users. The "define tracking" seems to line up
with understanding user expectations, though I agree that is only a part of
satisfying users' requirements. (Similarly, I think there's user
requirements in terms of what sort of privacy enhancements are they looking
for vs are we creating something that will result in an obnoxious user
experience). In terms of not forgetting about UAs, I personally feel we're
going off the deep end in defining so many status codes and believing UAs
are going to do something with this. In terms of servers, I think we're
seeing that debate play out in things like "Should IE10's signal be
respected".

It seems like we've got plenty of challenges ahead of us with respect to
each of the three constituent groups Aleecia identifies, and it's not clear
to me that we're making progress towards any sort of equitable forward
progress across the three fronts.



On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:45 AM, TOUBIANA, VINCENT (VINCENT) <
Vincent.Toubiana@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:

> 1.      The TPE document should not be released without the compliance
> document. There are already a lot of ambiguities about compliant User
> Agents. If server and user agent can not assume that they are speaking the
> same language, the standard is not helpful: server will ignore UAs request
> and UAs will consider server responses invalid...
> 2.      Define Unlinkability, this would help to specify which pieces of
> information service providers can retain and consequently to define
> “DoNotTrack”.
> 3.      Following Jonathan’s suggestion, I think it will be interesting to
> hear the point of view of small publishers from different continents.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Vincent
> ________________________________________
> From: Peter Swire [peter@peterswire.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:42 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
>
>