RE: Request for comments on priorities for DNT

Thanks for the opportunity to provide comments.  Microsoft remains fully committed to the W3C and the efforts of the TPWG, and welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback.

We believe that prioritizing focus on technical specification will result in more effective progress, particularly so that user agents have more solid guidance to start building technical features.

Overall, we believe the process can be improved with more predictability.  Specifically, we believe that we may be able to make more progress if we work through a particular area of a specification in a concerted way all the way to a decision, rather than moving from issue to unrelated issue.
One of those areas in the compliance spec that might benefit from a concerted effort is discussion of Permitted Uses, which we believe should support reasonable data collection (but no profiling) by third parties even when DNT:1

Thanks,

Amy



From: Peter Swire [mailto:peter@peterswire.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 9:39 AM
To: Shane Wiley; Jonathan Mayer; Chris Mejia
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org; Lou Mastria - DAA; Mike Zaneis
Subject: Re: Request for comments on priorities for DNT

Hello Working Group participants:

My request to the group was to have participants provide a concise statement about priority issues.

I am finding the submissions in that form very helpful.

I had not intended this thread to become a general-purpose back-and-forth about all of the tough issues facing the Working Group.

I suggest that the focus on the thread remain on initial statements about priorities.  We will have good opportunities going forward to have threaded, focused discussions on the various issues.

With that said, I am open to having this thread continue, especially for additional participants to state priority points.

Thank you,

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>

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>>
Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 12:34 PM
To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu<mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>>, Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net<mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>
Cc: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net<mailto:peter@peterswire.net>>, "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, Lou Mastria - DAA <lou@aboutads.info<mailto:lou@aboutads.info>>, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net<mailto:mike@iab.net>>
Subject: RE: Request for comments on priorities for DNT

Peter,

Could you please provide a bit of guidance if you expect the working group to now begin commenting on one another's priority submissions?  If that is the intention, then I don't believe this would be the best outcome as the issues being sent to you on both sides are substantial and each individual proposal in many cases would become a very long email conversation (and repetitive to past debates within the working group).

Thank you,
- Shane

From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 9:25 AM
To: Chris Mejia
Cc: Peter Swire; public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>; Lou Mastria - DAA; Mike Zaneis
Subject: Re: Request for comments on priorities for DNT

Dear DAA, IAB, 4A's, ANA, DMA, and NAI,

I agree that the working group's "Charter scope is clear."  The text you cite continues: "Additionally, the Working Group will define the scope of the user preference and practices for compliance with it in a way that will inform and be informed by the technical specification."

Best,
Jonathan


On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Chris Mejia wrote:
Hi Peter,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input valuable to re-focusing this group's efforts.


Focus for the Tracking Protection Working Group should be centered on the technical specification only.  The Charter scope is clear: "The Working Group will produce Recommendation-track specifications for a simple machine-readable preference expression mechanism ("Do Not Track") and technologies for selectively allowing or blocking tracking elements."  The widening of scope beyond a technical specification that defines "a simple machine-readable preference expression mechanism" has caused the working group's mandate to grow out of hand, and for progress to come to a virtual halt.  By re-focusing this group's efforts on the technical specification only, we believe that consensus may be more easily achievable.



Respectfully Submitted,



Digital Advertising Alliance - DAA

Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB

American Association of Advertisers - 4A's

Association of National Advertisers - ANA

Direct Marketing Association - DMA

Network Advertising Initiative - NAI



Submitted by Chris Mejia on behalf of the organizations listed above.

From: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net<mailto:peter@peterswire.net>>
Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 1:42 PM
To: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Request for comments on priorities for DNT
Resent-From: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:21 AM

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>