- From: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:21:44 +0000
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu>, "Walter van Holst" <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, Thomas Roessler - W3C <tlr@w3.org>, "Mike Zaneis" <mike@iab.net>
Rigo, many thanks for your detailed, thoughtful and professional response-- it's very much appreciated. Best Regards, Chris Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group | Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB On 10/25/12 6:55 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote: >Chris, > >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 >me. > >> 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 >situation. > >> 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). > >Rigo >
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 23:22:44 UTC