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

Folks, no one to my knowledge has suggested excising the 'MUST NOT set a 
default' requirement from the standard. The question is not so much 
'will you honour a standard that includes a default on', but rather 
'does the standard break down if we let everyone start second guessing 
signals and blacklisting browsers'.

There is a technical and a legal problem here that I really think needs 
to be addressed, to the benefit of all. The current scenario can very 
easily lead to an escalation of conflicting signals that will not be 
productive for anyone.

Best,
Tamir

On 6/13/2012 11:43 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
>
> 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>
>
>
> 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
>