Re: Chairs' communication on next steps in the Working Group

Peter,  

As I understood the procedure adopted on our June 16 call, it would take an affirmative decision of the group to extend the Last Call deadline beyond July 31.  Does that procedure remain in effect?

Thanks,
Jonathan


On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Peter Swire wrote:

> To the Working Group:
>  
> To clarify the procedure and specific proposal after today's call: the DAA proposal addresses a specific set of issues, notably de-identification, in a way that has been presented to us as an integrated approach.  It is also an approach that, if adopted, would significantly influence the group's further direction on this specification. As such, we are taking it to an integrated up-down decision.  
>   
> The decision before the group is between the following two options:
>      
>      1. Adopt the DAA's approach on de-identification and tracking, and its application to the permitted uses and the scope of Do Not Track, as the baseline for work in the group. If this option is adopted by the group, then there would be a subsequent process for polishing and closing specific language on the issues addressed by the DAA approach. Change proposals orthogonal to the specific issues addressed by the DAA approach would be resolved issue by issue.
>      
>      2. Continue with the June draft as the baseline for the work of the group, subject to the existing change proposals issue-by-issue.
>      
> In either case, the group would need to subsequently resolve the open issues that are still applicable, tracked on the Compliance June product, including the issues raised by Aleecia McDonald and those still on the public record from earlier discussion.  That work would extend beyond July 31.
>   
> In pursuit of this course, we are asking for clarifications of and editorial improvements to the DAA proposal by next Tuesday, July 9. We will further clarify which specific issues we believe would be addressed by adoption of the DAA proposal. We hope that those who support the DAA proposal will answer questions about the proposal raised in our process, including by Jonathan Mayer, Thomas Roessler, John Simpson, and others.  We are keeping a summary of open questions that have been posted to the list so far in the wiki:
>             http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Questions_re_DAA_proposal
>   
> The DAA proposal, as amended, and the June draft, together with the change proposals against it, will then form the basis for the upcoming chairs' decision.
>   
> We continue to entertain discussion on proposals that would not be "friendly amendments" to the DAA draft – in other words, proposals that would be orthogonal to the integrated approach of the DAA proposal, or proposals for consideration if alternative 2 prevails.  
>   
> We note that the change proposals and rationales submitted on the June Draft and posted at www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG#Change_proposals (http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG#Change_proposals) are clear and recent statements of views and do not need to be repeated.  In general, the chairs are of course informed by our time meeting with you and the public record created since the start of the Working Group.  As we all make a decision about which path to take, it may be helpful to explain by July 12 your reasons for or against a particular point, or cite to previous parts of the WG record if you believe it could assist a decision.
>   
> Nick Doty will make a survey form available that we will use to collect the specific objections.  
>   
> Our personal thanks for your work on these matters.
>   
> Peter and Matthias
>  
>  
>  
> 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
>