Re: Explanatory Memorandum

Peter & Matthias ­ 
 
I wanted to share some concerns I have with the Tracking Protection Working
Group ­ specifically regarding the recent decision by the chairs. I¹ve
attempted to engage Peter privately as the primary drafter of the text, but
my outreach was not fruitful.
 
I¹m trying to avoid the distraction of another public objection. I raise
these points in part because Peter¹s own criteria mandates that ³[t]he task
of the Working Group is to create a standard within the W3C process.² (See
page 4 of the exploratory memo). So, to the extent that we are not following
the W3C process, we are unlikely to reach the WG objective as framed by
Peter.
 
To that end, I¹d respectfully like to ask you to address the following
questions:
 
·     Why was the document entitled ³What Base Text to Use for the Do Not
Track Compliance Specification² (³Decision Document²) characterized as a
group decision rather than a chair¹s decision? The Decision Document
repeatedly uses the term ³group decision.² However, a group decision would
seem to suggest that WG member votes were tallied, but I don¹t see votes
tabulated anywhere. Naming conventions are important in a public process ­
it would be unfortunate if someone outside the WG were to have gotten the
impression that the Decision Document represented the working group¹s actual
consensus when it so clearly does not (See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0426.html).

 

·     If your ³5 criteria for DNT² were going to be utilized as the primary
criteria to evaluate the two draft texts, why wasn¹t that communicated to
the WG prior to the voting process? I¹m sure that would have been helpful
information to all of the WG members who spent hours of time writing
objections.

 
·     Why didn¹t the either of your documents reference the objections to
the June draft? While I don¹t necessarily agree with all of the criticisms
of the June draft, by omitting reference to them, you create the impression
that the selection of the June draft was a foregone conclusion.

 
I think it is unlikely that I¹m the only person with questions. Members of
the WG have asked dozens if not hundreds of process related questions over
the past month ­ very few have received a meaningful response. If the goal
of the Decision Document was to have Peter opine on the state of DNT, then
that should not be mistaken for a consensus decision by this WG.
 
I¹d appreciate it if you¹d clarify at your earliest opportunity.
 
Alan
 
 
 
 
 

From:  Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>
Date:  Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:27 PM
To:  "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject:  Explanatory Memorandum
Resent-From:  <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:27:55 +0000

> To the Group:
> 
> Attached please find the Explanatory Memorandum for the Working Group Decision
> on What Base Text to Use for the Base Text for the Do Not Track Compliance
> Specification.
> 
> This is a detailed document designed to provide a fuller documentation of the
> basis for the working group decision issued last night.  It is 34
> single-spaced pages, with 121 endnotes and detailed discussion of the comments
> submitted by the July 12 deadline.
> 
> For this Wednesday's call, we will continue work on additional change
> proposals, as listed on the group web page.  We plan to circulate a more
> detailed agenda, but I will take a break before turning to that.
> 
> 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
>