Re: Change Proposal - First party compliance (Issue - 170) - additional text

Colleagues,

As I read Alan's proposal it would precisely prohibit what Rob Sherman's "friendly amendment" to the DAA proposal would explicitly allow.  Am I correct?

Regards,
John


On Jul 9, 2013, at 8:24 AM, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com> wrote:

> Colleagues:
> 
> I have an additional update to my language re: first party compliance.
> 
> Suggested Language:
> If a first party receives a DNT:1 signal the first party MAY engage in its collection and use of information. This includes the ability to customize the content, services, and advertising in the context of the first party's experience as outlined by the first party's privacy policy. Use of this information outside the first party context is tracking and subject to third party rules for tracking as outlined in Section 5 below.
> 
> 
> 
> From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
> Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:16 AM
> To: <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: Change Proposal - First party compliance (Issue - 170)
> 
>> I propose the following change to section 4 of the June draft (new language in last sentance in bold)
>> 
>> If a first party receives a DNT:1 signal the first party MAY engage in its normal collection and use of information. This includes the ability to customize the content, services, and advertising in the context of the first party experience. Use of this information outside the first party context is tracking and subject to third party rules for tracking as outlined in Section 5 below.
>> 
>> Its worth noting that while he has not seen this language and therefore does not support the above language, Chris Pedigo and I have agreed to work on language in this area over the next couple of days.
>> 
>> Alan