- From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 03:19:35 -0400
- To: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>
- CC: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>, Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, "Aleecia M. McDonald - W3C WG Co-Chair" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org>, Brendan Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net>, Marc Groman - NAI <mgroman@networkadvertising.org>, David Wainberg - NAI <david@networkadvertising.org>
- Message-ID: <4FEC0587.6000300@cippic.ca>
Hi, I think this is probably an unproductive side track. I took Peter to mean that those who wish to respect existing DNT signals from browsers that are sending these out (Firefox has for a while, and now IE10), are able to do so. That is not, of course, the same as implementing the W3C spec, and I think everyone agrees that a representation that a server 'respects DNT signals' at this point cannot mean 'I respect the W3C spec' which is not yet completed. I just wanted to add very briefly FWIW that I was very pleased (/relieved?) to hear that progress had been made at Seattle, and look forward to seeing revised drafts in the coming weeks. Best, Tamir On 6/27/2012 8:57 PM, Mike Zaneis wrote: > Peter, > > After this comment I will join Ian in ignoring your comments since > they are not based in reality any longer. First, thank you for > inventing standards processes, but the W3C staff and our Co-chairs > likewise discovered these about 10 months ago. I assume we will > continue to adhere to their processes. > > Second, your ignorance of the law is astounding. Maybe you missed it, > but the EU already has a law in place. Codification has been ongoing > for a couple of years so nothing that transpires in this group can > change that process. > > Lastly, again, maybe you missed the dozens of emails and news articles > covering this, but the group has previously reached consensus on the > fact that default "on" by browsers will be non-compliant with any W3C > standard. You are free to continue to argue this point but I think we > all know what the definition of insanity is. > > Feel free to continue to argue with yourself. > > Mike Zaneis > SVP & General Counsel, IAB > (202) 253-1466 > > On Jun 27, 2012, at 7:15 PM, "Peter Cranstone" > <peter.cranstone@gmail.com <mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> Ian, >> >> What you continue to miss is actually shipping a working spec. There >> are 22 issues on the spec. How about we start at the top and work >> down. How about we put a timeline on those "issues" so we have a >> "forcing event" vs. lets sit in these endless debates. >> >> As for the exception mechanism – ok, lets solve that one. You work >> for a browser company, how about you start the ball rolling and give >> us some ways that Chrome can start supporting the exception >> mechanism. Of course they do actually need to support the three state >> mechanism first. >> >> Microsoft just accelerated the entire spec by announcing that Windows >> 8 will ship with DNT turned on "by default". That is ALL the EU needs >> to start enforcing a Do Not Track policy. Microsoft just effectively >> decouple the whole "technology vs. policy" debate and gave themselves >> a HUGE competitive advantage over every other browser. >> >> The second they ship, Chrome et al is in second place. Microsoft just >> took the lead in Privacy – and you let them. >> >> >> Peter >> ___________________________________ >> Peter J. Cranstone >> 720.663.1752 >> >> >> From: "Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)" <ifette@google.com >> <mailto:ifette@google.com>> >> Reply-To: <ifette@google.com <mailto:ifette@google.com>> >> Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:01 PM >> To: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com >> <mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com>> >> Cc: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net <mailto:mike@iab.net>>, Chris Mejia >> <chris.mejia@iab.net <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>, Lauren Gelman >> <gelman@blurryedge.com <mailto:gelman@blurryedge.com>>, Alan Chapell >> <achapell@chapellassociates.com >> <mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>, "Aleecia M. McDonald - W3C >> WG Co-Chair" <aleecia@aleecia.com <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>>, W3 >> Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, >> Brendan Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net >> <mailto:Brendan@iab.net>>, Marc Groman - NAI >> <mgroman@networkadvertising.org >> <mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org>>, David Wainberg - NAI >> <david@networkadvertising.org <mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>> >> Subject: Re: f2f wrap up & next steps >> >> Peter, >> >> We have discussed that the timeline as it is exists is not an >> accurate reflection of the state of the WG. That was the timeline >> put forth when the group was formed. Had you bothered to join the >> group and attend the f2f, I'm sure you would realize that many >> people have been discussing what an updated timeline would look >> like, and that we have open issues around "what are our criteria >> for CR". We probably spent between a half hour and an hour on day >> 1 discussing this issue alone. >> >> Again, you continue to ignore half the spec (the exception >> mechanism, which provides an API for sites to call and which >> browsers are supposed to remember the user's decision from) which >> is certainly a part of "testing" any real deployment. >> >> I honestly don't know why I am bothering to reply to you. You >> continue to ignore what people say, think you're the first person >> to think any of this up, and seem to have a knack for turning >> conversations into unproductive black holes. I'm going to escape >> the gravitational field whilst I can. >> >> -Ian >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Peter Cranstone >> <peter.cranstone@gmail.com <mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Mike, >> >> Have you looked at the timeline that Aleecia put forward? How >> can you put forward a timeline that is so out of touch with >> reality? I have no idea. I've read all the f2f meeting notes, >> checked the timeline, spoken with Rigo regarding the DNT >> header values and so you can imagine that reading your email >> is now a complete surprise to me. I've known Aleecia for >> awhile now and she's incredibly detailed and accurate. >> >> So how can it (the timeline) be so far out of touch with what >> you're suggesting below? And why has no one else other than >> me pointed out why we all need to reset our expectation. >> Reset them to what? >> >> >> >> Peter >> ___________________________________ >> Peter J. Cranstone >> 720.663.1752 <tel:720.663.1752> >> >> >> From: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net <mailto:mike@iab.net>> >> Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:06 PM >> To: "ifette@google.com <mailto:ifette@google.com>" >> <ifette@google.com <mailto:ifette@google.com>>, Peter >> Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com >> <mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com>> >> Cc: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net >> <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>, Lauren Gelman >> <gelman@blurryedge.com <mailto:gelman@blurryedge.com>>, Alan >> Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com >> <mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>, "Aleecia M. >> McDonald - W3C WG Co-Chair" <aleecia@aleecia.com >> <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>>, W3 Tracking >> <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, >> Brendan Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net >> <mailto:Brendan@iab.net>>, Marc Groman - NAI >> <mgroman@networkadvertising.org >> <mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org>>, David Wainberg - >> NAI <david@networkadvertising.org >> <mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>> >> >> Subject: RE: f2f wrap up & next steps >> >> To continue with Ian’s list: >> >> No browsers currently offer the ability to send DNT: 0, >> which is a critical element of the response process >> >> We had a long discussion at the face to face meeting >> about how such choices would be offered, so this >> provision needs to be developed in the spec >> >> Peter, I think you need to get a handle on the working >> group process and its status. You state that we are a >> few days away from issuing a last call document(s). I >> won’t put a time frame on when this group will come to >> consensus around a document, but we have openly talked >> about another face to face meeting in the September time >> frame, so you should readjust your expectations like the >> rest of us have. >> >> I don’t think it is helpful to berate the group about >> implementation, technology mandates, or unrealistic >> timeframes and deadlines. Again, I do not know if you >> are out of touch with the working group because you are >> relatively new or because you were not at the last face >> to face meeting, but either way none of this helps focus >> our discussion, nor does it increase buy in from >> companies. Let’s be transparent and accurate, which is >> the only way we will continue to advance the process. >> >> Mike Zaneis >> >> SVP & General Counsel >> >> Interactive Advertising Bureau >> >> (202) 253-1466 <tel:%28202%29%20253-1466> >> >> Follow me on Twitter @mikezaneis >> >> *From:*Ian Fette (イアンフェッ ティ) >> [mailto:ifette@google.com] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:40 PM >> *To:* Peter Cranstone >> *Cc:* Mike Zaneis; Chris Mejia; Lauren Gelman; Alan >> Chapell; Aleecia M. McDonald - W3C WG Co-Chair; W3C DNT >> Working Group Mailing List; Brendan Riordan-Butterworth; >> Marc Groman - NAI; David Wainberg - NAI >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: f2f wrap up & next steps >> >> The spec speaks to a heck of a lot more than sending >> 1/0/unset. There's the mechanism for requesting >> exceptions, there's response codes from the server. >> Saying "you send 0/1 from the browser and you're done" is >> disingenuous. >> >> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Peter Cranstone >> <peter.cranstone@gmail.com >> <mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Mike, >> >> The spec talks to sending 1, 0 and unset. Nothing has >> changed there for months and months. All major browsers >> (except one) currently support it. >> >> So what has changed? Why don't you tell us, and then >> explain why we cannot yet begin to implement it? It's >> very convenient to say that a spec is a "moving target" >> and yet nobody explains what the moving target is or why >> it keeps moving. >> >> Why don't we start with a real list of what remains to be >> done to complete the implementation of the spec. From >> Aleecia's list the other day >> (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/) we're a few >> days away from last call. Ignoring the missing (or maybe >> not) Call for Implementation we're one month a way from a >> "Call for Review". >> >> So – in summary we're roughly 45 days away from shipping >> this spec out the door and about 120 days from a final >> recommendation. Exactly how far off can this spec be? >> >> Where's the final to do list – absent that all I see is >> delaying tactics. >> >> >> Peter >> ___________________________________ >> Peter J. Cranstone >> 720.663.1752 <tel:720.663.1752> >> >> *From: *Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net <mailto:mike@iab.net>> >> *Date: *Wednesday, June 27, 2012 12:19 PM >> >> >> *To: *Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com >> <mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com>>, Chris Mejia >> <chris.mejia@iab.net <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>, >> Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com >> <mailto:gelman@blurryedge.com>> >> *Cc: *Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com >> <mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>, "Aleecia M. >> McDonald - W3C WG Co-Chair" <aleecia@aleecia.com >> <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>>, W3 Tracking >> <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, >> Brendan Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net >> <mailto:Brendan@iab.net>>, Marc Groman - NAI >> <mgroman@networkadvertising.org >> <mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org>>, David Wainberg >> - NAI <david@networkadvertising.org >> <mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>> >> *Subject: *RE: f2f wrap up & next steps >> >> Peter, >> >> You are right, you can implement the “current state >> of the spec”. However, that spec is changing. The >> technological implementation in that spec is >> changing, per our hours of discussion last week. I’m >> sorry you missed the meeting last week, but you >> should not misrepresent the facts just because you >> are not aware of them or choose to ignore them. >> >> Mike Zaneis >> >> SVP & General Counsel >> >> Interactive Advertising Bureau >> >> (202) 253-1466 <tel:%28202%29%20253-1466> >> >> Follow me on Twitter @mikezaneis >> >> *From:*Peter Cranstone [mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com] >> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:16 PM >> *To:* Mike Zaneis; Chris Mejia; Lauren Gelman >> *Cc:* Alan Chapell; Aleecia M. McDonald - W3C WG >> Co-Chair; W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List; Brendan >> Riordan-Butterworth; Marc Groman - NAI; David >> Wainberg - NAI >> *Subject:* Re: f2f wrap up & next steps >> >> I disagree. You can implement the current state of >> the spec this afternoon. The W3 could not have made >> this spec any simpler than a 1, 0 or unset (and those >> headers haven't changed forever). There can only be >> three values to look for. That's the no brainer part. >> >> What you cannot know is the legal (policy) >> ramifications are from not complying correctly with >> what you just implemented. >> >> For example – I look for a header, I see the header, >> I comply with the header – what happens next if >> someone wants to audit what I just did? What happens >> if somehow my code has bugs in it and instead of >> complying with a 1 header I inadvertently send a 0 to >> all the third parties and violate someone's privacy. >> What kind of legal costs could I incur from not being >> perfectly compliant? >> >> Tech has never been the issue on this spec – because >> it's so simple. It's just been used as an excuse to >> delay adding privacy controls for a consumer which >> they may or may not "choose" to use. It's now >> becoming a marketing/legal problem. >> >> >> Peter >> >> >> ___________________________________ >> Peter J. Cranstone >> 720.663.1752 <tel:720.663.1752> >> >> *From: *Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net <mailto:mike@iab.net>> >> >> >> *Date: *Wednesday, June 27, 2012 12:07 PM >> *To: *Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com >> <mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com>>, Chris Mejia >> <chris.mejia@iab.net <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>, >> Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com >> <mailto:gelman@blurryedge.com>> >> *Cc: *Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com >> <mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>, "Aleecia M. >> McDonald - W3C WG Co-Chair" <aleecia@aleecia.com >> <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>>, W3 Tracking >> <public-tracking@w3.org >> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, Brendan >> Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net >> <mailto:Brendan@iab.net>>, Marc Groman - NAI >> <mgroman@networkadvertising.org >> <mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org>>, David >> Wainberg - NAI <david@networkadvertising.org >> <mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>> >> *Subject: *RE: f2f wrap up & next steps >> >> I don’t think we need to get into a protracted >> debate about this issue. There is no W3C spec at >> this time, either a technical spec or a >> compliance spec. These documents change on a >> weekly basis and will continue to do so until >> they are completed. If a company wants to commit >> publically to following a document that is in a >> constant state of flux, that is their choice and >> the IAB will not try to dissuade them from doing >> so. However, we will educate our members about >> the actual state of play with the W3C documents, >> especially when there is messaging that indicates >> the technical spec is complete and simple to >> implement, neither of which is true (by >> definition it cannot be simple to implement a >> spec that is always subject to change). >> >> In any case, the IAB does not provide legal >> advice and no messaging done in this group should >> be construed as such. >> >> Mike Zaneis >> >> SVP & General Counsel >> >> Interactive Advertising Bureau >> >> (202) 253-1466 <tel:%28202%29%20253-1466> >> >> Follow me on Twitter @mikezaneis >> >> *From:*Peter Cranstone >> [mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com] >> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:45 PM >> *To:* Chris Mejia; Lauren Gelman >> *Cc:* Alan Chapell; Aleecia M. McDonald - W3C WG >> Co-Chair; W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List; >> Mike Zaneis; Brendan Riordan-Butterworth; Marc >> Groman - NAI; David Wainberg - NAI >> *Subject:* Re: f2f wrap up & next steps >> >> Here's the technology part of the spec. >> >> Browser sends DNT:1 >> >> Server accepts DNT: 1 (reads incoming header) >> >> Server sets a flag on the data for storage >> compliance reasons >> >> Technology issues are now over. It would just >> take few lines of code to read that incoming >> header (Mod_DNT >> <http://www.5o9mm.com/mod_dnt_test_1.php> already >> does it, you can seen instantly if the header is >> present. Probably took us an hour.) Everything >> that happens from that point on (costs, loss or >> gain in revenue, compliance etc.) is now governed >> by policy. >> >> That's where things are going to get complicated >> regardless of how DNT is implemented from a >> technology standpoint. >> >> >> Peter >> >> >> ___________________________________ >> Peter J. Cranstone >> 720.663.1752 <tel:720.663.1752> >> >> *From: *Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net >> <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>> >> >> >> *Date: *Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:36 AM >> *To: *Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com >> <mailto:gelman@blurryedge.com>> >> *Cc: *Alan Chapell >> <achapell@chapellassociates.com >> <mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>, >> "Aleecia M. McDonald - W3C WG Co-Chair" >> <aleecia@aleecia.com >> <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>>, W3 Tracking >> <public-tracking@w3.org >> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, Mike Zaneis >> <mike@iab.net <mailto:mike@iab.net>>, Brendan >> Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net >> <mailto:Brendan@iab.net>>, Marc Groman - NAI >> <mgroman@networkadvertising.org >> <mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org>>, David >> Wainberg - NAI <david@networkadvertising.org >> <mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>> >> *Subject: *Re: f2f wrap up & next steps >> *Resent-From: *W3 Tracking >> <public-tracking@w3.org >> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>> >> *Resent-Date: *Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:37:30 +0000 >> >> Just to clarify, I have not provided any >> "legal advise" nor would I ever propose to do >> so; I'm not a lawyer or even a public policy >> expert, I'm a technologist. >> >> I simply balanced the assertion (from >> Aleecia's message: "/I believe we will be far >> enough along for many potential early >> adopters to begin their work on >> implementations without risk of redoing major >> work/") that companies should proceed with >> implementing a specification that is not >> final, with reasonable questions and points >> to consider before doing so. Considering all >> points is not only fair, it's a responsible >> business practice. >> >> I also have not proposed that companies >> should not contemplate testing. Testing and >> actual implementation are two different things. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Chris >> >> Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions >> | Ad Technology Group | Interactive >> Advertising Bureau - IAB | >> chris.mejia@iab.net >> <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net> | >> >> *From: *Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com >> <mailto:gelman@blurryedge.com>> >> *Date: *Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:23:10 -0700 >> *To: *Chris Mejia - IAB <chris.mejia@iab.net >> <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>> >> *Cc: *Alan Chapell >> <achapell@chapellassociates.com >> <mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>, >> "Aleecia M. McDonald - W3C WG Co-Chair" >> <aleecia@aleecia.com >> <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>>, W3C DNT >> Working Group Mailing List >> <public-tracking@w3.org >> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, Mike Zaneis >> - IAB <mike@iab.net <mailto:mike@iab.net>>, >> Brendan Riordan-Butterworth - IAB >> <brendan@iab.net <mailto:brendan@iab.net>>, >> Marc Groman - NAI >> <mgroman@networkadvertising.org >> <mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org>>, >> David Wainberg - NAI >> <david@networkadvertising.org >> <mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>> >> *Subject: *Re: f2f wrap up & next steps >> >> It is inappropriate to offer this kind of >> generalized legal advise on this list. It is >> up to individual businesses to decide how >> they want to compete. It is these scare >> tactics that have made privacy policies >> ineffective and created the demand for DNT. >> >> It is perfectly plausible to write a >> disclosure on any topic that accurately >> informs a user of a company's policies and >> the costs/benefits involved and does not >> create unreasonable risk to the business. I >> am available to provide references to people >> who are happy to work with companies who want >> to "do the right thing." >> >> And frankly, it is just insincere to >> criticize DNT because it has not been tested >> in large scale implementation and >> simultaneously warn companies not to attempt >> large scale implementations because DNT has >> not been finalized. >> >> Lauren Gelman >> BlurryEdge Strategies >> 415-627-8512 <tel:415-627-8512> >> >> On Jun 27, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Chris Mejia wrote: >> >> >> >> Well written Alan, thank you. I'd like to >> further highlight one very important point >> you made below: >> >> */"Not to mention that any public >> representation that one is complying with DNT >> may subject a company to regulatory scrutiny."/* >> >> Any company contemplating public committal to >> "honoring" DNT headers at this stage, before >> a specification has been agreed to, finalized >> and published, should carefully consider a >> few important points: >> >> * The DNT specification is not >> complete/final. Finalization may be many >> months away, and there is always a >> possibility that it is never finalized >> (i.e. the spec creation /could/ be >> abandoned pursuant to intellectual >> property claims, for example). Although >> we are all working to a positive outcome, >> companies should consider ALL possible >> outcomes before committing. >> * Committing your adherence publicly to a >> "moving target" specification may >> bind/expose your company later to >> requirements that may not be achievable >> once the specification is finalized. In >> other words, why would you commit to >> something when you don't know what that >> something will be? What if the technical >> requirements of the final spec are not >> achievable, are cost prohibitive and/or >> not friendly to your business model and >> thus your longevity as a company? What >> if adherence to the final specification >> means a significant drop in revenue for >> your company? >> * Be sure that at least here in the US, and >> possibly elsewhere, regulatory >> authorities will likely exercise all >> their power to ensure that you remain in >> compliance with the final specification, >> even though you may have only committed >> to a preliminary version. In bringing >> action against your company, they may >> cite reasonable consumer expectations >> based on the final specification and/or >> market confusion if you don't elect to >> comply with the full specification later, >> having publicly committed to it previously. >> >> All in all, while it might seem like you are >> "doing the right thing" or "getting ahead of >> the game" by committing early to the >> unfinished specification, doing so may put >> your company at significant risk down the >> line. Please make this decision carefully, >> and ensure you are well informed before >> committing. The IAB, DAA, NAI and OPA are >> industry resources you may want to consult >> during your decision making process. Again, >> we are all interested in protecting consumer >> privacy. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Chris Mejia, IAB >> >> Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions >> | Ad Technology Group | Interactive >> Advertising Bureau - IAB | >> chris.mejia@iab.net >> <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net> | >> >> *From: *Alan Chapell >> <achapell@chapellassociates.com >> <mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>> >> *Date: *Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:34:35 -0400 >> *To: *"Aleecia M. McDonald - W3C WG Co-Chair" >> <aleecia@aleecia.com >> <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>>, W3C DNT >> Working Group Mailing List >> <public-tracking@w3.org >> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>> >> *Subject: *Re: f2f wrap up & next steps >> *Resent-From: *W3C DNT Working Group Mailing >> List <public-tracking@w3.org >> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>> >> *Resent-Date: *Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:35:35 +0000 >> >> Thanks Aleecia. >> >> I'm sure this wasn't your intent, but I'd >> caution the group against creating the >> impression that the marketplace should look >> to implement right now given that we haven't >> defined many of the key terms at this point. >> While it may make sense for some companies to >> expiriment and look through documentation as >> we create it, the reality is that many small >> to mid-sized companies may not have the >> resources to pour into understanding let >> along implementing a document where key terms >> are still in flux. Not to mention that any >> public representation that one is complying >> with DNT may subject a company to regulatory >> scrutiny. >> >> Also, I wanted to circle back regarding the >> group's charter. Thomas mentioned something >> about rechartering during the meeting, but I >> hadn't heard anything further. I'm wondering >> if this is an appropriate opportunity to >> re-evaluate what we're really trying to >> accomplish in this group as there seemed to >> be a myriad of opinions raised to that effect >> in Bellevue. And to be clear, I'm not >> necessarily advocating specific changes to >> the charter. In any event, if the W3C is >> working under the assumption that >> rechartering should automatically take place >> without at least some group discussion, I >> would see that as problematic. I'm sure >> that's not the case. So, I'm simply asking if >> this will be on the July 11 agenda? I believe >> the charter expires in July, correct? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Alan Chapell >> >> Chapell & Associates >> >> On 6/25/12 11:17 PM, "Aleecia M. McDonald" >> <aleecia@aleecia.com >> <mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>> wrote: >> >> Greetings, >> >> Thank you to the 60+ people who attended >> the Seattle meeting, many of whom flew >> great distances to make it. We walked in >> with two Compliance proposals that were >> far apart, with neither able to reach >> consensus in the form it was in. As a >> group we decided we needed to move the >> proposals closer to the center, and we >> did just that. We walked out with an >> overall direction that everyone can live >> with for permitted business uses, >> including proposed text for two of the >> five we discussed, and great new ideas. >> We can now see the outline what DNT will >> look like and where we need to go. We >> took up some of the most contentious >> remaining issues, on purpose, and we made >> solid progress on the hardest stuff. >> >> I am particularly pleased with proposals >> that allow business uses to continue >> while improving privacy, by doing things >> a little differently with a low burden >> for implementation. That's a home run. >> That's exactly what we are looking for, >> the point where everyone can live with >> the outcome. That is the hope and promise >> for DNT, and what we are all working so >> hard to realize. We still have a lot to >> do. There are many details to fit into >> place, some of them quite important to >> some stakeholders. We will work through >> them. I was encouraged hearing people >> say, "This is not what I would choose, >> but I can live with it in order to move >> forward." Well done. That's how consensus >> happens. >> >> On TPE, editors will incorporate >> decisions that came out of the final day, >> and then we will review the final text as >> a group to ensure all is as agreed. >> Similarly on Compliance, the editors will >> write a strawman proposal that >> incorporates text from four different >> documents (existing draft, proposed >> combination draft, proposal from Shane et >> al, proposal from Jonathan et al.) That >> strawman is already well in progress >> thanks to our talented editors. My hope >> is for a Compliance strawman draft by the >> week of July 2. As a group, we will then >> review all text that has not had >> consensus (that is, no need to re-review >> text that was already agreed upon in >> prior drafts, nor the text we agreed upon >> while Nick live-edited during the Seattle >> meeting.) We need to publish new drafts >> soon, since it has been several months >> since our last publications. We will >> evaluate the state of the drafts to see >> if we are ready to ask for input as a >> First Last Call document with major >> issues resolved, or if we are looking at >> a Third Public Working Draft. >> >> Either way, I believe we will be far >> enough along for many potential early >> adopters to begin their work on >> implementations without risk of redoing >> major work, provided we are very clear >> about where work remains in flux. To do >> that well, as Ian points out, we will >> need at least one user agent developing a >> compliant implementation so we can test >> interoperability. We have already worked >> through about half of the issues on user >> agent compliance with one conference call >> and an hour in Seattle. We'll work >> through the rest in the fairly near term. >> After we review the strawman draft, if >> you are planning on doing an >> implementation soon and there are >> specific unresolved Compliance issues >> that would get in your way, I'm open to >> prioritizing them earlier. Just let me >> know so I can make informed scheduling >> trade offs. >> >> Our next face-to-face meeting will be in >> Europe, likely in mid- to late September. >> If you have a location that can handle >> about 70 people in that time frame for >> three days, please let us know the >> details. We have a generous standing >> offer to go back to Brussels, though we >> try to hold meetings in varied locations >> to distribute the travel burden. Once we >> know our options we will use an online >> Doodle poll to understand which >> possibilities allow the greatest number >> of TPWG members to attend, just as we >> have done for past meetings. >> >> Coming soon... >> >> - a new mailing list to receive external >> comments. By the time we get out of Last >> Call, we'll have a few of those, plus >> comments from implementations. >> >> - Rigo will begin to organize the first >> draft of the Global Considerations >> document, which will be non-normative. >> >> To me, it felt like Seattle was the >> bumpiest f2f I've co-chaired. I am >> thrilled to have new voices and a greater >> breadth of stakeholders, but it is >> challenging with different levels of >> understanding of the work to date. Next >> time, perhaps we need a mandatory in >> person pre-meeting for anyone who has not >> attended a prior f2f. It's also hard to >> make progress with the sheer number of >> people. I didn't scale with the group >> size as well as I'd like. I have some >> ideas and will keep thinking about that. >> And I made it harder on all of us than it >> had to be because I started to get >> frustrated. We'd spent two months with >> radically different proposals and >> movement by inches when we needed yards. >> What I learned last week is to have more >> faith in the ability of the full group to >> get hard things done, and to trust the >> process. We're making progress, moving >> toward the middle, and as Ed points out, >> we can see where the final compromise >> needs to be. Let's make it happen. >> >> Thank you again to Microsoft for the >> space, and for Facebook, Google, and >> Yahoo! for hosting financially and >> feeding us. A special warm thank you to >> JC for taking great care of us in his >> beautiful city of Seattle. If you scribed >> last week - thank you! If you didn't - be >> ready to do so an upcoming call. :-) >> >> Aleecia >> >
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2012 07:21:02 UTC