W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Deciding Exceptions (ISSUE-23, ISSUE-24, ISSUE-25, ISSUE-31, ISSUE-34, ISSUE-49)

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:19:52 +0100
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <2020999.vO6alqO57h@hegel>
Shane, 

On Wednesday 08 February 2012 07:03:31 Shane Wiley wrote:
> Arbitrary timeframes are just that - arbitrary.  I would recommend the group
> continue to uphold minimization standards and force parties to defend their
> retention periods that are unique and specific to their business model.

this also depends on who is the arbiter at what point in time. We are here 
because the model of arbitration we had so far didn't work particularly well. 
As far as I understand it, you suggest to maintain that model. Do you?

If you talk about minimization standards, I would be interested in concrete 
suggestions of minimization including a clear understanding of what is 
currently collected and will not be collected under the DNT=1 frequency 
capping exception.

Finally, my argument was about fixed timeframes for retention and not arbitrary 
ones. That means we agree, don't we? 

Best, 

Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 17:22:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:44 UTC