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

My regrets;  I am at an MPEG meeting in Korea.

(I hope I am up to date on edits and so on).

On Apr 23, 2013, at 21:17 , Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Professor Peter P. Swire
> C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
>    Ohio State University
> 240.994.4142
> www.peterswire.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
> Reply-To: "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com>
> Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:23 PM
> To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, Peter Swire
> <peter@peterswire.net>
> Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> 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.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 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
>>> www.ConsumerWatchdog.org [1]
>>> john@consumerwatchdog.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Links:
>>> ------
>>> [1] http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2013 01:14:17 UTC