W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > September 2012

RE: ISSUE-45 ACTION-246: draft proposal regarding making a public compliance commitment

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 11:13:16 -0700
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
CC: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, "Grimmelmann, James" <James.Grimmelmann@nyls.edu>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8026207179826@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>

Could you explain why a Server couldn't respond to a DNT:1 signal with the compliance regime they are upholding in the context of honoring that user's DNT:1 signal?

If a user in the UK sends a DNT:1 signal to a Server in Ireland, couldn't the Server reply to the DNT:1 that it is both honoring the DNT:1 signal and following the EDAA code of conduct to do so?  How does this break EU law?

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:55 AM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: David Wainberg; Grimmelmann, James; Shane Wiley
Subject: Re: ISSUE-45 ACTION-246: draft proposal regarding making a public compliance commitment


On Thursday 06 September 2012 09:52:44 David Wainberg wrote:
> Maybe a
> better way to put it is that it is a way for a server to indicate 
> which  standard for DNT it is following, on the assumption that a 
> diversity of business models, and jurisdictions, etc will necessarily 
> lead to distinctions in the way companies implement DNT.

ISSUE-45 has nothing to do with selecting between several regimes or even expressing adherence to a certain regime. Can users than send DNT:1-NDL to Google because they require Google to follow the Dutch DNT regime? You're going fully into the negotiation hell. No offense intended really, but it simply doesn't work that way. However nice it would be for the political landscape and however happy people would be. It just doesn't work protocol-wise. 


P.S. For the fun:
Your DNT is wicked? Please use mine!
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 18:14:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:00 UTC