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

claim that Internet is being "radically changed" DNT

From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:56:26 -0400
Cc: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Message-id: <D159DB05-57FB-4A70-B209-16F69186BB3E@democraticmedia.org>
To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>

I take issue with your charge that the search for user control over third party tracking/surveillance is "radically changing the Internet."  That's a dangerous and unsupported charge.  

The chairs need to help move the process through--and final disagreements can be formally filed and publicly vetted through the W3C objection process.  As for re-opening old issues, we must confront the realities of our pending deadline--and the need for a final outcome.

We should not be focused on the tactics of delay/obfuscation.  It's time to create a DNT standard that protects the public, including incorporating the Mozilla/EFF/Mayer elements.

Center for Digital democracy

On Sep 7, 2012, at 3:35 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:

> Hi Rigo -
> I'm afraid I'm a bit confused by your response. I recognize and applaud
> the tremendous work that Aleecia and Matthias have undertaken as part of
> these proceedings.
> However, if you're making the assertion that a W3C chair can take the
> temperature of the room and just 'decide' consensus on an issue without a
> requirement of documentation of such consensus, you are at grave risk of
> delegitimizing the W3C process and the output of our work here. If you're
> asking Shane to offer proof that the "feeling in the room" is different
> than Aleeica's recollection, I'm sort of left scratching my head how one
> might do this. 
> As I would hope you'd agree, we're radically changing the way the internet
> works here. If our stated goal is to operate by group consensus, then it
> would seem reasonable (not to mention beneficial for the legitimacy of our
> output) to require that such consensus be documented and not left to
> whimsy. If the issue was discussed, and the group's consensus was XXXX,
> then its up to the group to document that consensus - or else, why bother
> to document anything in IRC?
> On a related note, there's been a few emails regarding the re-opening of
> old issues. And from what I gather, there is a strong resistance to
> re-opening issues on the part of the co-chairs and others. I can certainly
> understand some level of resistance - as its difficult to move forward if
> we're going back and revisiting old issues. That said, I'd like to point
> out that many issues have been 'closed' without fully defining key terms
> such as TRACKING. And as I (and others) have consistently pointed out,
> where there are issues that are dependent upon a complete understanding of
> key terms, I reserve the right to look to re-open those issues. If the W3C
> is telling me that you will be unwilling to re-open these issues, then I
> think we're all in for a challenging time at the next face to face
> meetings.
> If you can provide additional guidance here, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
> Alan Chapell
> On 9/6/12 4:44 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:
>> Shane, 
>> please do not overburden the chair. In W3C the Chair asserts
>> consensus. This may be a feeling in the room. If you disagree,
>> please provide evidence that the Chair was wrong assuming consensus.
>> You may find such evidence in the meeting minutes or on the mailing
>> list. 
>> This doesn't say who is right or wrong, but Chairs are vulnerable
>> and exposed in the W3C Process and we have to protect them.
>> Rigo
>> On Thursday 06 September 2012 11:24:12 Shane Wiley wrote:
>>> I was in Seattle and don't remember us truly considering this
>>> option if you're referring to your exercise of walking the
>>> working group through alternatives if the W3C DNT standard was
>>> not completed - is that what you're referring to?  Could you
>>> please help me find the section in the meeting notes that you
>>> feel was a fair "group consideration and rejection" of this
>>> concept?
>>> Failing that, I believe this is a NEW and VALID issue for the
>>> group to discuss and consider (and either accept or reject).

Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009

Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 19:57:27 UTC

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