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

Re: claim that Internet is being "radically changed" DNT

From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:22:13 -0400
To: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
CC: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Message-ID: <CC6FCDEA.205DD%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Hi Jeff:

I'm sorry you're taking issue. Would you have been more comfortable had I
used the term "online media and advertising landscape" rather than "the
internet" is being radically changed? If that's your beef, I'll certainly
take that into consideration in future posts.

That said, it might be worth re-sharing the article that John Simpson kindly

Correct me if you still think I'm wrong, but if MSFT has changed its browser
in response to DNT, and Apache software is making significant changes as a
result of DNT, don't those count as significant (if not radical) changes?
Please keep in mind, these are changes that have been implimented before the
group has even released a spec. Is it not reasonable to conclude that there
might be other changes as a result of our group's work?

That said, I strongly disagree with your baseless accusation that I'm
engaging in "tactics of delay/obfuscation."

Can't we all be a bit more civil to each other?


From:  Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
Date:  Friday, September 7, 2012 3:56 PM
To:  Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Cc:  Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>, Shane Wiley
<wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Subject:  claim that Internet is being "radically changed" DNT


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
www.democraticmedia.org <http://www.democraticmedia.org>
www.digitalads.org <http://www.digitalads.org>
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 20:22:48 UTC

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