DNT Concerns

Colleagues ­ my thoughts on some of the major issues I see with this
initiative.
> * No consensus on the harms we're trying to address, or the problems we're
> trying to solve.
> * Disproportionate impact of DNT on small to mid­tier players when compared to
> larger players. Similar issue with third parties in comparison to first
> parties.
> * Few (if any) requirements on UA's to disclose DNT functionality completely
> and accurately or provide consumers with the ability to make informed,
> granular choices about DNT, exceptions, etc.  Put another way, four companies
> that own browsers have too much power and control over the implementation of
> DNT that impacts the entire ecosystem and is outside the scope of the TPWG.
> * Disparate regulatory environments (particularly EU vs. U.S.) make a one size
> fits all approach problematic. (E.g., ePrivacy focuses on opt-in model in some
> places, and covers all cookies ­ which is different than the approach in other
> parts of the world. All due respect to the talents of Rigo and the global
> considerations initiatives ‹ in order to be successful, the global
> considerations effort requires EU regulators and browsers to do things that
> they've already told the group they are unwilling to do.)
> * Exhaustion / Resource issues ­ We have huge issues outstanding, with no
> discernible end in site. How much ,more time and energy should be placed into
> this process within the W3C? At risk of being labeled the gloomy Gus of the
> WG, I'm beginning to wonder if continuing this effort within the W3C will be
> an effective use of time and resources. I don't think I'm alone here.

Alan