RE: ACTION-254: Draft text on freq. capping that would avoid new definitions and/or remove redundant normative requirement

Nick,

This is close.  I've made a few edits as I believe there are two use cases we're attempting to cover:
	- Non-Site Specific Frequency Capping:  No need of specific URL structure in these cases
	- Site-Specific Frequency Capping:  Mask the URL structure in some way to avoid retaining URL History in the clear for the purpose of frequency capping.

NOTE:  As all Permitted Uses are to be used expressly and only for the purpose outlined, I don't believe the last sentence is needed (already covered in the "master" Permitted Use rules).  I also believe that Permitted Uses being applied specifically to third parties is already covered in the "master" Permitted Use rules but I've left it in for argument sake.

"<Normative> 
Operators may retain data related to a communication in a third-party context to use for limiting how often advertisements are shown to a particular user if the data retained do not include the user's browsing history in the clear.

<Non-Normative>  
Non-site specific frequency capping can occur by retaining a unique cookie identifier, a campaign ID, and a counter (may be a master counter or broken down by day-part) - there is no need to retain a user's URL in this scenario.  For site-specific frequency capping, Operators can mask the URL structure of the site through approaches like hashing the user ID against the URL that is the target of frequency capping.  This will result in a consistent identifier to use for frequency capping but not reveal the actual URL that is being visited."

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Doty [mailto:npdoty@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:39 AM
To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
Cc: Shane Wiley; Amy Colando (LCA)
Subject: ACTION-254: Draft text on freq. capping that would avoid new definitions and/or remove redundant normative requirement

I think Shane and Amy were taking the lead on new possible text for frequency capping, but here is one attempt:

> Operators may retain data related to a communication in a third-party context to use for limiting how often advertisements are shown to a particular user if the data retained do not include the user's browsing history (for example, page URIs on which ads were past delivered). For this permitted use, operators must not construct profiles of users or user behavior based on their ad frequency history  or otherwise alter the user's experience based on this data.

The motivation here was to reflect the idea from the Bellevue meeting of frequency capping that doesn't retain URI histories, but to make that a high-level requirement rather than a specific implementation (hashing of campaign IDs). It may be that those implementations would still be useful examples for an appendix. Shane, Amy or others, please let me know whether this captures what you had in mind.

Thanks,
Nick

Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 10:06:37 UTC