RE: Proposals for Compliance issue clean up



Redirections are invisible to users so we cannot give the parties that host them carte blanche to ignore DNT. The 1st party/ 3rd party distinction is starting to make this whole process look ridiculous.




From: Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) [] 
Sent: 09 November 2012 21:07
To: Aleecia M. McDonald
Cc: ( (
Subject: Re: Proposals for Compliance issue clean up


Aleecia, there was proposed text as an alternative to ISSUE-97/ACTION/196. See my work on ACTION-303 and proposals on that thread.


In particular, I am not satisfied with redirects being treated as third parties and would object to that concept.




On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald <> wrote:

Here are places we might have straight-forward decisions. If there are no responses within a week (that is, by Friday 16 November,) we will adopt the proposals below.

For issue-97 (Re-direction, shortened URLs, click analytics -- what kind of tracking is this?)  with action-196, we have text with no counter proposal. Unless someone volunteers to take an action to write opposing text, we will close this with the action-196 text.
        PROPOSED: We adopt the text from action-196,

For issue-60 (Will a recipient know if it itself is a 1st or 3rd party?) we had a meeting of the minds ( but did not close the issue. We have support for 3.5.2 Option 2,, with one of the authors of 3.5.1 Option 1, accepting Option 2. There was no sustained objection against Option 2 at that time. Let us find out if there is remaining disagreement.
        PROPOSED: We adopt 3.5.2 Option 2,

For action-306, we have a proposed definition with accompanying non-normative examples
        PROPOSED: We adopt the text from action-306 to define declared data, to be added to the definitions in the Compliance document,
        PROPOSED: We look for volunteers to take an action to write text explaining when and how declared data is relevant (See the note in, to address issue-64



Received on Saturday, 10 November 2012 09:21:11 UTC