Re: Work Plan for July

My reactions to these questions:

1.  For amendments to the DAA text, my main thought was what one might call "friendly" "clarifying" or "perfecting" amendments.  in other words, if the DAA package becomes the baseline, then these would be amendments in the spirit of the DAA package.

2.  The basic choice is "continuing with the June Draft as a base text vs. swapping in the DAA proposals as a base text, with either result open to later amendment."

Thank you,

Peter



Prof. Peter P. Swire
C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
Ohio State University
240.994.4142
www.peterswire.net

Beginning August 2013:
Nancy J. and Lawrence P. Huang Professor
Law and Ethics Program
Scheller College of Business
Georgia Institute of Technology


From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu<mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>>
Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 1:49 PM
To: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net<mailto:peter@peterswire.net>>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Work Plan for July

Peter,

Two brief clarifying questions.

First, what sorts of amendments would be considered for the DAA text?  Since it roughly parallels the June Draft structure, could we carry over the many preexisting amendments that Nick has so carefully organized?

Second, what is the decision the chairs are proposing to make by the end of July? Adopting the June Draft as a Last Call text vs. adopting the DAA proposal as a Last Call text?  Continuing with the June Draft as a base text vs. swapping in the DAA proposal as a base text, with either result open to later amendment?  Something in between?

Thanks,
Jonathan


On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Peter Swire wrote:

To the Working Group:



This email builds on our recent communications about next steps in the Working Group:



 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/0518.html

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/0220.html



We will use this week’s and next week’s calls to refine a key decision, and related sets of issues.  Having reviewed all the change proposals, I believe there are two general paths to develop a standard:



1.  We can use the June Draft as the base, and evaluate the various change proposals against that Draft.



2.  We can use the DAA proposal as a baseline.  We could use it to address (and close) a number of critical issues.  The DAA proposal has been presented to us as a package, and we will consider it as such.



Along either path, we will need to evaluate key issuesincluding de-identification and provisions on unique identifiers, as discussed in the previous email about our work plan.  The DAA proposal also makes specific choices on the definition of tracking and the scope of first and third party compliance provisions.  Different, but potentially important, change proposals have been offered by Alan Chappell, John Simpson, and Jeff Chester, particularly with respect to the treatment in a third-party context of information gathered in a first-party context.



In the July 3 call, the DAA will summarize its package, including on de-identification, unique identifiers, and first and third party compliance.  We will continue those discussions on July 10, in part to assure that people have more time to evaluate these issues and to return from vacation where that applies.



Consistent with the WG’s longstanding decision policy and as outlined by Nick, perfecting amendments to the DAA proposal are due by nooneastern on Tuesday, July 9.  The July 10 call will give us a chance to discuss any such amendments.  Assuming there is no consensus on the June Draft vs. the DAA approach (which I believe is a safe assumption given our experience in the group) written submissions containing reasoned objectionswill be due by 5 p.m. U.S. Pacific time on Friday, July 12.  That date is sixteen days after the deadline for submission of change proposals, offering time for members of the Group to consider the proposals and offer comments.



The chairs will then work promptly on a Chairs Decision.  The group will discuss and review this decision before the end of July.  Time permitting, we may also discuss other change proposals, within the structure of this overall decision on a path forward.



I look forward to discussing these issues with you on July 3 and July 10.



Peter


Prof. Peter P. Swire
C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
Ohio State University
240.994.4142
www.peterswire.net<http://www.peterswire.net>

Beginning August 2013:
Nancy J. and Lawrence P. Huang Professor
Law and Ethics Program
Scheller College of Business
Georgia Institute of Technology