- From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:55:48 +0200
- To: <public-tracking@w3.org>
On 2012-10-25 18:19, Chris Mejia wrote: > Walter, perhaps you should take your tech suggestion to the MRC, > where it > would actionable, if they find it valid for their Congressionally > mandated > purpose. Just a friendly suggestion, but as far as I know, they are > not > directly represented here. > Dear Chris, May I remind you that the burden of proof of the nature and substance of the MRC guidelines lies upon those who claim them to be relevant in this context. Moreover, although I shouldn't do your homework, a look at the MRC website reveals that the MRC itself does not claim to have a formal Congressional mandate: "In the early 1960’s a U.S. Congressional Committee held hearings on the purpose and accuracy of audience research and considered regulation related to the TV and Radio industries. These public hearings are commonly referred to as the “Harris Committee Hearings on Broadcast Ratings.” After investigation and extensive testimony the Committee determined that Industry self-regulation, including independent audits of rating services was preferable to government intervention. The Harris Committee hearings resulted in the formation of an Industry-funded organization to review and accredit audience rating services called the Broadcast Rating Council (now referred to as the MRC)." (From their 'About' page) Yesterday's "discussion" erupted after Jonathan gave his, (I think accurate) grammatical reading of the MRC guidelines which at face value does not contain anything that a reasonable reader would find applicable to ad impression gathering on the internet. In that you stated repeatedly your experience and involvement with the MRC process and role, but also stated that you would not provide any further information to enlighten our ignorance on that subject. In the meantime Ed Felten observed that there are already market players that claim a) to be compliant to the MRC guidelines and to b) honour opt-out requests, which indicates that the MRC guidelines are not necessarily applicable in this context. So on one hand we have claims by Amy and you that MRC guidelines are relevant, with you repeatedly claiming a Congressional mandate. Thereby implying a mandate through an Congressional act. On the other hand we have a, presumably ignorant, bunch of people that see can't see anything in MRC's own documents that either implies relevance on the subject matter or a legal mandate for MRC to operate in the way you have implied. The course of action I would suggest is that those who brought the MRC guidelines up in the first place either: a) furnish references that support their claims or b) formally request W3C to involve MRC in this debate and to furnish a position. Neither is a task for those who have questioned your asessment of this matter. So far my asessment is that the MRC guidelines bear no relevance and that they are strictly self-regulatory, meaning self-inflicted and therefore cannot, even if online ad impressions were within the scope of the citations givenhere, be a reason to override DNT:1 while claiming to be DNT-compliant. I will be perfectly happy to revisit that asessment if evidence to the contrary is supplied to aforementioned options. In other words: put up or shut up. Regards, Walter
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 16:56:16 UTC