Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

Rigo, many thanks for your detailed, thoughtful and professional
response-- it's very much appreciated.

Best Regards,


Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group |
Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB

On 10/25/12 6:55 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <> wrote:

>On Thursday 25 October 2012 18:49:17 Chris Mejia wrote:
>> As the attorney for the W3C, I always see you making eloquent
>> arguments and statements that almost always come from a European
>> perspective.  While I appreciate that you are European, may I
>> humbly ask, is there a U.S. attorney for the W3C that can bring
>> some balance to this process/working group by offering a
>> well-researched and well-understood U.S. perspective to the
>> working group, in addition to the European perspective you always
>> bring?  
>Apologies if I had too much airtime on EU stuff. I have to get the
>global considerations up and running. So please do not misread my
>activity as making EU rules for the US. W3C is a very small
>organization and apart from being the Legal counsel, I also happen
>to be the Privacy Activity Lead since 10 years. In this role I was
>tasked by Thomas to get the EU stuff rolling. And that is the very
>reason why you see me on those discussions. If you want more of my
>intervention on the US topic, please tell me and I'll do.
>> OR, since the W3C represents itself as an "international
>> standards setting organization", and you are the sole W3C
>> attorney participating in the working group, may I humbly ask
>> that you please do as thorough a job researching and presenting
>> U.S. (and other country's) concerns as you do European concerns
>> around DNT?
>I think I do some of this, but I see that you want to have me label
>clearly what belongs to what. I will try that, but in the heat of so
>many emails, I may forget from time to time. Don't hesitate to ask
>> Your voice in this forum comes with the weight and
>> influence of your office/position at W3C, and international
>> organization as I understand it.  As I denote a distinct bias
>> towards the European perspective in your comments, statements and
>> assertions to this group, I'd only ask for fair-play; that
>> perspectives other than European be presented by the W3C staff.
>I've seen my role differently, but your call makes me re-consider my
>own picture of my own position. I have tendency not to overestimate
>my "weight and position". So if you have the feeling that my
>position creates too much weight, tell me how I can remedy the
>> For example, perhaps you could offer your legal expertise to the
>> group by contacting the MRC, conducting unbiased primary research
>> on their mandate, their standards, their motivation and their
>> process, and then present the results to this group?
>> Respectfully, I think it's a fair request.
>Nice one, but very unfortunately I'm too busy to do that and
>normally rely on division of labor to have people explain things to
>me. Kimon has explained many things to me and this mainly worked. I
>saw Ed making some inquiry and you haven't answered his email (or I
>haven't been there yet in the thread of all those emails). We are a
>group of nearly 60 people. If someone else could come up with an
>executive summary of what MRC does, that would be fine. You offered,
>let's hope that the chairs will put it on the agenda.
>> There is one other option that has been repeatedly brought forward
>> by me and others: regional/jurisdictional compliance
>> specifications for DNT.
>See, here I take my W3C hat and formally convey that W3C has the
>principle of one Web. This doesn't mean EU rules for the US or US
>rules for the EU. It just means that the Web is one place. And that
>we strive for a tool that works in this one place. I still hope we
>can come up with one solution that works for all (although with
>pain, I know) and gives us a longer term perspective. This would not
>only ease the transborder data flow issues, but is also one of the
>benefits that W3C as a global organization can bring to the table
>compared to the regional associations of interest that have created
>things we are benefiting from in our work here. This may or may not
>be appreciated, but this is one of our added values.
>> At the end of the day, we are going to
>> keep running our heads into the same wall:  that wall is, every
>> jurisdiction has its own unique and sovereign practices and
>> requirements that should be respected.
>Why so dramatic? I think we are on a good path and my discussions on
>global considerations are going better than expected.
>> And I believe, Europeans
>> should do what's good for Europeans, and we should do what's good
>> for United Statesmen.  And Mexicans should do what's right for
>> Mexicans.  
>Are you seriously arguing for a isolationist paradigm from the
>thirties in the internet age? Your adds are shown to Japanese and
>Chinese and those from down under...
>> And so onŠ  If you have a valid concern on the merits
>> of this suggestion, I have not heard/seen it (apologies in
>> advance if you have already provided it and I simply missed it).
>> Short of pointing me to you argument against this approach, could
>> you please tell me why this would be a bad idea?
>see above. You should have been present at the OECD when the
>politicians started to talk about transborder data flow and
>restrictions thereof. Knowing Internet technologies, you would have
>scratched your head. You're operating in a global market. What we
>try here is to make the thing work globally to benefit all. And no,
>I don't think somebody will be forced into something. We will have a
>clear cost/benefit analysis and decide whether we can integrate the
>EU case normally in the Specs or whether we have to take it outside.
>In the latter case, DNT will become a US specification and we'll see
>another document that profiles this for EU consumption. But before
>doing so, I try to have one solution for one web. There is a huge
>benefit in implementing once and play everywhere. There may be some
>footnotes necessary that I hope will not harm the US market.
>In fact, I said in Amsterdam: The US have to define what DNT:1 means
>and the EU folks have to define what DNT:0 means. The other probable
>distinction is that in EU landscape there will be no 1st/3rd party
>distinction, which should be a non-normative footnote as it just
>hints to law (and not creating one).

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 23:22:44 UTC