Re: alternative to party and outsourcing definitions

On Oct 3, 2012, at 7:10 AM, Jonathan Mayer wrote:

> You've made it clear on a number of occasions that Adobe, one of the largest service providers on the web, wants: 1) to be treated as a first party, and 2) to not have to identify itself as a service provider.  Please don't bury those views in a critique of drafting.

The fact that Adobe knows more about how to implement siloed
service provision than anyone else in the group should be
looked on as an asset.  Instead, you choose to act the troll.
If you have a problem with the text that I proposed, then
address it -- not my employer.

During the meeting, I posted on IRC links to just a few of the
messages I have sent to the mailing list, some 5-6 months ago,
that still have not been addressed by the Compliance editors.
The job of the editors is to propose text that attempts to
resolve outstanding objections and to remove text that clearly
has no such resolution.  I don't think it should be necessary
for me to repeat myself over and over and over again.

Aleecia asked me a few weeks ago to write something as a
suggested replacement for the party definitions, since I have
commented many times that they are wrong (in both DC and
Bellevue, and in several calls before and since).
So, I did that.  It would be nice if these issues were
actually addressed by substantive changes to the draft,
rather than wait another three months for the exact same
discussion to occur again.


Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 21:13:58 UTC