Wednesday call this week on TPE; schedule leading up to F2F

Hello to the Group:

Matthias will circulate today an agenda for this Wednesday's call that
will have TPE matters as the focus.

As many of you know, there is a U.S. Senate hearing scheduled on DNT just
shortly after the weekly call. Three of the four witnesses are members of
the WG, and other WG members (including myself) expect to be physically at
the hearing, along with others watching the webcast.

The call this week will thus focus on TPE, and I am not sure whether I
will be able to be on it.

The next Wednesday call will be on May 1, and I expect it to be an
important call.  Apologies to those in countries where May 1 is a holiday,
but I expect that call to have a lot of important content about the
compliance spec and the F2F.

W3C staff and I are working hard to have more to present to the WG about
how to use the F2F constructively.  We will be following up during this
week as we have more to say.



Professor Peter P. Swire
C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
    Ohio State University

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob van Eijk <>
Reply-To: "" <>
Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:23 PM
To: John Simpson <>, Peter Swire
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez's speech

>Thank you John, it inspired me to write an open letter to the chairs
>and the group.
>Dear Peter,
>Dear Matthias,
>Dear group members,
>The honorable mrs. Ramirez makes it clear in her speech that the FTC
>advocates a DNT that allows consumers to stop the collection of nearly
>all behavioral data gathered across sites and not just the serving of
>targeted ads. On behalf of the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party
>I am echoing this criterium of collection limitation.
>As expressed on the call, time has come to make a choice whether Do Not
>Track means Do Not Collect or Do Not Use. The privacy advocates
>positions gear towards a collection limitation instrument, the
>advertising industry positions gear towards a use limitation approach
>that may well resemble or carbon copy the DAA code of conduct.
>Peter called for proposals to move forward. Before proposing a way to
>move forward I will address three concerns.
>First, It is clear to me that trying to bridge the two positions is a
>waste of our time. The two positions are so far apart that in terms of
>game theory no optimal solution is possible. I expressed this on the
>call today, when Peter thinking through the possible scenario's for the
>upcoming face 2 face meeting.
>Second, it is also clear to me that the W3C process of the least
>objectionable proposal, is not suited to bridge the gap between the
>compliance positions. If a decision is based on choosing the least
>objectionable proposal, it will show that the process is not a democracy
>by votes. It also has an an important implication, namely that if the
>chair is making such a decision, W3C becomes the problem owner. I find
>the fact that W3C may become the problem owner a big risk for a multi
>stakeholder process. It is a risk that concerns me.
>Third, time is ticking. Last Call is planned for July 2013 and this
>status is an important deadline. It is unlikely that the group will
>remain complete if the deadline of July 2013 is not met. It is a risk
>that concerns me even more. Making a swift choice what the problem is
>the group is willing to solve should be on the top of our issue list.
>I therefore propose a way to move forward. A wise way forward IMHO
>would be to make an affirmative choice either 1. for collection
>limitation or 2. for use limitation with clear and specific added value
>to the existing self regulatory solutions or 3. for a NoGo (ie a
>premature closure of the whole multi stakeholder exercise).
>This choice for 1 or 2 allows the disentanglement of many of the
>interdependent issues that have held the process in a deadlock for too
>long. This choice also allows for the breakdown of the problem at hand
>into sub-issues, that can effectively be addressed in time and solved
>before Last Call. Making this choice asap allows us to make use of our
>valuable face 2 face time in Sunnyvale.
>Whether a choice for option 2 will be acceptable for the privacy
>advocates remains to be seen. Although the time is ticking, there is a
>window of opportunity for the stakeholders of the advertising industry
>to do the right things to convince the privacy advocates of the added
>value that DNT will bring to their self regulatory solutions.
>Rob van Eijk
>John Simpson schreef op 2013-04-17 21:34:
>> Colleagues,
>> FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramiez has just made an interesting speech to
>> the American Advertising Federation that touches on our efforts to
>> develop a Do Not Track standard.
>> I've attached it as a PDF file.
>> Regards,
>> John
>> ---------
>> John M. Simpson
>> Privacy Project Director
>> Consumer Watchdog
>> 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
>> Santa Monica, CA, 90405
>> Tel: 310-392-7041
>> Cell: 310-292-1902
>> [1]
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1]

Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 12:17:37 UTC