Re: 'Scope' change proposal

David,

There is nothing in the language that suggests that there are no
requirements on 1st parties.  It is completely syntactically neutral and
one could as easily conclude that there are no obligations on 3rd parities
as no obligations on 1st parties.  As a factual matter, the spec does
create very different compliance obligations on 1st parties and 3rd
parties.  This distinction is fundamental and is worthy of introduction
early in the document.  If you (or others) feel that my proposed language
implies no compliance obligations on 1st parties, please feel free to make
a suggestion.  Alternatively, if you don't see a fundamental distinction
on 1st and 3rd party requirements, please make a convincing argument and I
can remove the language.  I can't fix what I don't see.

Now what was not implied, but rather expressed directly by the original
language, was that the spec saw obligations around the offering of a
preference mechanism to allow or deny tracking equally.  As no where in
the spec is there a requirement for a mechanism to "allow" tracking, this
is indeed misleading, and I have tried to fix the language.
  
Let's get the first sentence right.  It would seem such a good start.

-Brooks



-- 

Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the
Wunderman Network
(Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com
brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com



This email ­ including attachments ­ may contain confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient,
 do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
immediately and delete the message.



On 7/2/13 8:13 PM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:

>http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Scope
>
>Problem:
>
>The scope sentence sets the general scope of the specification, and the
>proposed alternatives imply no rules for anything other than 3rd parties,
>which is misleading.
>
>Solution:
>
>no change.  we think the current sentence sets the general scope well.
>
>
>Question:
>
>do we need formal 'no change' proposals for everything, or (if we fail to
>agree on a proposal) is that always implicitly there?
>
>
>David Singer
>Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 14:55:36 UTC