My summary of ISSUE-111 and ISSUE-129 and ISSUE-130 - Input for TPE part of today's telco

Hi Team,

thanks for the productive discussions on our mailing list. As input to
our call, I tried to summarise
my conclusion that is based on the opinions raised on the mailing list.

- User arrives with DNT;1

I see consensus emerging on the following points:
1. MUST: Publishers need a function to ask for a site-specific exception
for all "*" third parties
    that it uses (today or in the future).  This allows them to work
with ad networks and the like.

2. MUST: Users may want to grant a web-wide exception to a third parties
(e.g., a producer of a widget)
    to make this widget function under DNT;1 all over the web.

3. SHOULD: Other sites (with few and known third parties) would prefer
an API where the
     third parties are explicitly listed.  This allows them to provide
enhanced transparency.
     This API may not be implementable on all devices (-> only a  SHOULD
for browsers).

In the call, I'd like to double check that I captured this consensus
correctly. If yes, then I'd like to solicit (if needed) updates to the
text and then formally close these issues.

I currently believe that this API can also be used for polling.
Open questions (that we may or may not choose to address) are:
1. Transparency for individuals: How can they learn what third parties
where actually used by a site?
     [Could, e.g., a list be auto-populated one a exception is in place?]

2. Compliance: How to use these functions to satisfy different
regulatory requirements?

3. DNT values to signal site-specific preferences. E.g.
    1 = no known exceptions for you
    2 = "*" exception (sent to 1st party saying that all its third
parties are exempted)
    0 = You have an exeption (sent to 1st or 3rd parties)
            1st: You have an exeption but there is no "*" exception [You
may poll for details]
            3rd: You either have a web-wide exception or your 1st party
got you exempted.


Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 11:50:59 UTC