Re: DNT Concerns

Thanks for the clarification, Kimon. My apologies for not being clear.

What I wrote is:

"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."

What I should have written is:

"ePrivacy focuses on opt-in model in some places (e.g., Netherlands), and
covers most types of cookies (1st as well as 3rd party) including analytics,
oba, ad serving optimization. This approach is different than the approach
in other parts of the world."

Is that better?




Cheers,

Alan Chapell
Chapell & Associates


From:  Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu>
Date:  Wednesday, December 5, 2012 5:58 PM
To:  Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org"
<public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: DNT Concerns
Resent-From:  <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:59:37 +0000

> Guys,
> For the record and doing justice to the strictest data protection authorities:
> There's certainly not an opt-in in Europe for all cookies and I would argue
> not even an explicit consent in the majority of EU and EEA countries.
> 
> And I reiterate my offer to give a brief presentation at the next WG meeting
> on European privacy law to demystify EU privacy laws.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Kimon
> 
> Kimon Zorbas
> Vice President IAB Europe
> 
> IAB Europe - The Egg ­Rue Barastraat 175 ­1070 Brussels - Belgium
> Phone +32 (0)2 5265 568
> Mob +32 494 34 91 68
> Fax +32 2 526 55 60
> vp@iabeurope.eu
> Twitter: @kimon_zorbas
> 
> www.iabeurope.eu and www.interactcongress. eu
> 
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Alan Chapell" <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
> To: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: DNT Concerns
> Date: Wed, Dec 5, 2012 6:00 pm
> 
> 
> 
> 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