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

Jeff,

Generally speaking where $60+ billion is in play, terms like "radical" don't seem all that extreme.  Of course I come from a country with a 16 trillion dollar debt, so maybe 11 digit numbers really aren't that radical.  Alan would it be fair to ask you to please wait until there is 100 billion at play before we use the term "radical" to describe the potential impacts?  Driving towards consensus…

-Brooks

From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org<mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>>
Date: Friday, September 7, 2012 4:54 PM
To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com<mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>
Cc: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org<mailto:rigo@w3.org>>, "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>>, Aleecia McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com<mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com>>
Subject: Re: claim that Internet is being "radically changed" DNT
Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Friday, September 7, 2012 4:54 PM

Alan:  The accusation that DNT is trying to "radically" change the Internet is such an absurd charge, it must be rebutted. I appreciate your loyalism to the online ad industry.  But finally addressing the long-standing failure to incorporate privacy in the business model should not, in any way, require radical change.  It does require transparency, candor, and respect for users.  These are qualities I assume responsible companies marketing online know are part of any sustainable business practice.

 I am very disturbed by the action of Adobe, which I find unfortunate.

Although Fall and cooler weather approach, it appears we are still having a long, hot, DNT summer!

Regards,

Jeff

On Sep 7, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:

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 shared. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57508351-93/apache-web-software-overrides-ie10-do-not-track-setting/?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=News-PoliticsandLaw)

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?

Alan


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

Alan:

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.

Jeff
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<mailto: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/>
202-986-2220


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>
202-986-2220