Re: alternative to party and outsourcing definitions

Roy, we do not make changes to the editors' draft whenever one person 
makes a suggestion --- the spec would have a dozen different options on 
every substantive issue. Since Bellevue, we were tasked to draft around 
the parameters of Shane's draft but to incorporate options from the 
EFF/Stanford/Mozilla draft --- in fact, those two axes have framed the 
entire discussion (for better or worse!) since the Washington meeting.  
I have tried to incorporate the discussions on the mailing list as well 
when I thought there was consensus building behind a particular idea, 
but I had not perceived a lot of popular support for your personal 
opinions --- I could well be wrong about that.  FWIW, I specifically 
called our your suggested language on parties today as a potential path 
forward (though I still am not sure anyone else supports or how much 
substantive difference I see between it and some of the existing options).

I am not saying your opinions are wrong.  I am saying that as a scribe I 
am not entirely sure what to do when one person makes a suggestion and 
no one else echoes it or otherwise responds.  In general, I am never 
sure how to capture the incredibly detailed discussions on the mailing 
list that do not end up with a definitive conclusion.  In other 
instances, we have been criticized for adding language to the draft that 
is not at consensus.  If the answer is to include your texts as options 
to be considered coming out of this meeting, I personally have no objection.

Justin Brookman
Director, Consumer Privacy
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
tel 202.407.8812
fax 202.637.0969

On 10/3/2012 5:13 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 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.
> ....Roy

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 21:44:07 UTC