Re: Request for comments on priorities for DNT

I support the objectives of providing consumers with enhanced 
transparency and choice with respect to the collection and use of 
information, as well as the promotion of responsible practices by 
companies. But I have a couple of observations regarding the DNT policy 
debate thus far, and a suggestion for moving forward.

First, competition. DNT policy should not pick winners and losers in a 
highly competitive and dynamic marketplace. It should not alter the 
competitive landscape, create barriers to entry, or provide additional 
competitive advantages for a small number of dominant players. The 
policy currently under discussion risks creating the wrong incentives, 
resulting in less competition, fewer players who control online content 
and services, and ultimately minimal net benefit for privacy.

Second, participation. Policies -- particularly self-regulatory, 
voluntary standards -- are most successful when there is full 
participation and buy-in from the actors to be most affected. This leads 
to wide-scale adoption and successful implementation, which then 
provides benefits to everyone. Currently, it does not appear to exist.

Moving forward. Where there is already wide consensus is in the 
development of the technical specification. The best route to a widely 
adopted policy that can create the right incentives to enhance privacy 
and promote best practices is for the TPWG to focus on a technical 
specification to facilitate established policy-making structures in 
various jurisdictions.

Thank you for considering my comments.


On 11/28/12 4:42 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