Re: DNT Concerns

Dear Walter,

I'm sorry you were feeling ignored. I've been traveling all day and may
have read your post too quickly. Moreover, Peter was clear that his intent
here was not to revisit old discussions - so my apologies there. I thought
it best to offer a response to both you and Kimon rather than not respond
at all - as I was keen to ensure that I hadn't misspoke when I said that
the EU and U.S. have different regulatory environments.

Perhaps this is a larger discussion that is left for another day. So maybe
we just shake hands and postpone this discussion until the appropriate
time?

Thanks!

Alan




On 12/6/12 1:38 PM, "Walter van Holst" <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>On 2012-12-06 16:28, achapell wrote:
>> Thanks Walter. I'm not sure that everyone in the wg agrees with your
>> analysis. But leaving that aside, even under your analysis, it seems
>> that dnt would need to be applied very differently in the EU than in
>> other places in order to meet the legal requirements there.
>
>Dear Alan,
>
>I was under the, apparantly misguided, impression that we were having a
>conversation here. Merely restating your opinion that DNT cannot be a
>global standard after having been explained how it can be made to work
>globally does not count as one. Slightly shorter: it is not necessarily
>good manners to ask questions and make it subsequently abundantly clear
>there was no real interest in getting educated whatsoever.
>
>Furthermore, ignoring my question on further elaborations to why you
>think Rigo's approach cannot work other than "the legal requirements are
>different" does not really contribute to the idea of having a
>conversation either.
>
>Regards,
>
>  Walter
>
>

Received on Thursday, 6 December 2012 21:00:17 UTC