DMA Objection to Editors' Draft

(I have submitted this objection through the poll, but am sending to the list-serv as well to ensure that it gets through...)

The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) thanks the W3C staff and the TPWG Co-Chairs for providing the June W3C Draft (“Editors’ Draft”) and for all of the work that went into creating the document.  However, DMA respectfully objects to the Editors’ Draft because we do not believe it provides a sufficient basis to reach a final standard that will both enjoy wide adoption and provide a significant privacy gain for consumers.  

DMA’s objections to the Editors’ Draft center around the following concerns:

1.) The Editors’ Draft is unlikely to gain widespread adoption.  

The entities primarily covered by the proposed Do Not Track (DNT) standard are unlikely to adopt and comply with the approach in the Editors’ Draft because it is overly broad and anti-competitive.  It would severely curtail online businesses and e-commerce without a commensurate privacy benefit to consumers. 

The industry consensus proposal(the “DAA Proposal”) presents a solution that can be implemented and adopted by industry while providing a net gain in consumer privacy.  The balanced and narrowly tailored approach laid out in the industry consensus proposal solves specific privacy concerns while maintaining competition and a diverse Internet economy and so is much more likely to gain widespread adoption – and ultimately benefit consumers with a net privacy gain through better data hygiene.  Indeed, if Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) were to back the industry consensus proposal with independent enforcement, those actions would foster adoption of the standard even further.

In contrast, the Editors’ Draft does not present a solution that can be implemented and adopted by industry.  Without this, the Editors’ Draft fails to meet one of the W3C’s own key elements of “success” – the ability to gain wide adoption.  In failing to gain widespread adoption, we believe that a standard built from the Editors’ Draft would create confusion in the marketplace rather than providing a net privacy gain for consumers.

2.) The Editors’ Draft will harm competition in the industry.  

Specifically impeding competition in the Internet economy – all without a positive net benefit to users' privacy.

3.) The definition of “tracking” in the Editors’ Draft is overly broad.

The definition of “tracking” in the Editors’ Draft is too broad and difficult to interpret for both what is and is not considered to be within the scope of “Do Not Track” (DNT).  In contrast, the industry consensus proposal is simple and easy to follow as a starting point for all subsequent decisions that need to be made with this critical definition in mind.


4.) The Editors’ Draft Fails to Put Choice and Control in the Hands of Consumers.

Whereas the industry consensus proposal ensures that choice remains with the consumer, the Editors’ Draft would allow a large volume of non-browser, non-user activated DNT signals to proliferate in the online ecosystem.  

DMA appreciates the opportunity to participate in finding a consensus solution that will result in a net privacy gain for consumers through the Tracking Protection Working Group, and thanks the chairs and staff for their continued work in leading this process.

Sincerely,
Rachel

Rachel Nyswander Thomas
Vice President, Government Affairs
Direct Marketing Association

Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 21:40:32 UTC