RE: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

Note - NAI represents over 80 ad serving companies.

- Shane

From: Marc Groman [mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:42 PM
To: Mike Zaneis
Cc: Jonathan Mayer; Shane Wiley; Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org; Roy T. Fielding; Tamir Israel
Subject: Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

NAI will not support a DNT standard that includes a default on.

---

Marc M. Groman
Network Advertising Initiative | Executive Director and General Counsel
1001 Connecticut Ave., Suite 705, Washington, DC 20036
P: 202-835-9810 | mgroman@networkadvertising.org<mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org>


[cid:image001.gif@01CD49BE.46B28190]

On Jun 13, 2012, at 11:25 PM, Mike Zaneis wrote:


Strange subject given the fact that this working group, advocates and industry alike, agreed in Boston last September that browser flags were not to be turned on by default. This collective decision as memorialized in an open and immediately closed issue a couple of weeks following that meeting. This fact is not up for debate.

If people would now like to reverse their positions then they are free to do so and ask to open a new issue on the subject. No problem there, but let's not play games and act like we did not agree to one position at the very outset of the working group.

Can we please get some guidance from the W3C staff or Co-chairs on the proper procedure here so we can all be spared the selective amnesia from certain parties?

Mike Zaneis
SVP & General Counsel, IAB
(202) 253-1466

On Jun 13, 2012, at 10:17 PM, "Jonathan Mayer" <jmayer@stanford.edu<mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>> wrote:
Shane,

The online advertising industry participants in the working group have not spoken with one voice on the issue of browser defaults.  AdTruth and Microsoft appear willing to honor Do Not Track by default.  Representatives from Adobe, Google, and Yahoo have indicated that they'd prefer not to.  It certainly would be helpful to hear the perspectives of other working group members who operate advertising businesses.

Best,
Jonathan

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
Jonathan,

Are you referring to the one ad targeting company that relies on digital fingerprinting and desperately needs DNT to provide some level of user control over their current business practices?  There may be a few outliers but please understand they represent less than 1% of traffic on the Internet.  If that's your goal, so be it.

- Shane

From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 10:11 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>; Roy T. Fielding; Tamir Israel
Subject: Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

Shane,

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "a standard no one in industry will implement."  Earlier today a working group member from an ad targeting company suggested they would implement the W3C Do Not Track standard if it included honoring Internet Explorer's default implementation.

Jonathan

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
We already are by discussing elements of a standard no one in industry will implement. You're taking us down that road again...

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:59 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
Cc: Roy T. Fielding; Tamir Israel
Subject: Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

On Tuesday 12 June 2012 16:30:21 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
DNT is not the only consent mechanism. Right now it doesn't
even qualify as one. Inside the tracking status resource you
will see a link to a control resource. That resource is a
consent mechanism. It doesn't depend on DNT. It doesn't
disappear even if the DNT field is ignored. And that's just
one of many possible consent mechanisms other than DNT that
a site might use in order to comply with regional laws.

You could implement P3P that had already that opt-out URI 10 years
ago... Roy, are you suggesting we repeat history?

Rigo