Re: Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re ISSUE-111)

Shane,

I think adds a lot of complexity, as now we the browsers have to figure out
UI that's not god-awful for these preferences, and I think it's also rather
confusing as it leads to these issues of redirect chains and confusion (if
I grant yield manager an exception, does that flow down to whomever the ad
is syndicated to?) -- I think it would be much simpler to implement and
understand if it were just *.

-Ian

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> Ian,****
>
> ** **
>
> While I agree with the simplified approach (trust me -or- trust my site),
> I believe there are really 3 options when we look at the entire spectrum of
> user granted exceptions that some in the working group would like to employ:
> ****
>
> *1st Party*                         *3rd Party*                 *Outcome**
> ***
>
> coXYZ.com                  adABC.net            adABC.net has
> site-specific exception on coXYZ.xcom****
>
> coXYZ.com                  *                              All 3rd parties
> that operate with coXYZ.com will have an exception****
>
> *                                      adABC.net            adABC.net has
> a web-wide exception on any party’s site****
>
> While I don’t believe many publishers will ever implement option one (1stparty + 3
> rd party expressed domain pair), I don’t believe it harms the standard to
> have this as an option.  Do you feel this adds too high a burden of
> complexity when compared to the possible options it may provide to those
> publishers that wish to only gain exceptions for known 3rd parties?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you,****
>
> - Shane****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) [mailto:ifette@google.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 21, 2012 5:29 AM
> *To:* public-tracking@w3.org Group WG
> *Subject:* Redirect chains and DNT:0 / Exception:* (ACTION-146 re
> ISSUE-111)****
>
> ** **
>
> Upon reflection, this is probably just further discussion for ISSUE-111. I
> also can't seem to find the canonical text that ISSUE-111 is proposing.
> That said, my understanding of the proposal is essentially allowing for
> negotiation of (on this site, X can track me) where X is a single third
> party, list of third parties, or all third parties.****
>
> ** **
>
> My main concern is that, as a website author, you may include ads from a
> given ad network (be that doubleclick, yieldmanager, adecn, or whatever)
> but have no idea what other third parties those ad networks syndicate to.
> You want higher quality ads on your site (which presumably translates to
> more revenue for the site), so you request an exception for the third party
> ad network you use directly. But, you have no idea, in the presence of
> syndication, what the final ad provider will be, so you have no way of
> requesting an exception.****
>
> ** **
>
> It seems like the only meaningful thing is to request *, at which point I
> wonder why we're making this so complicated, rather than just two options
> -- "I request an exception for myself" vs "I request an exception for
> myself and third parties on my page."****
>
> ** **
>
> -Ian****
>