Re: extension of time on audience measurement suggested amendments

Rob, 

If I understood our June 19 call correctly, the plan is to dedicate much of Wednesday to process discussions.  From the minutes:

> [Peter: ] our last call deadline is end of july, july 31. It does not seem wise to be deciding on the last day....so the wednesday before that will be a key planned meeting to decide where the group is.....
> i would like to propose no punting rule from jmayer. we are trying to get the text done. It would take an affirmative decision by the group to extend beyond July 31.


Best,
Jonathan


On Saturday, July 20, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Rob van Eijk wrote:

> 
> Dear Peter,
> 
> Could you please confirm whether we will have a NoGo discussion?
> 
> Regards,
> Rob
> 
> Rob van Eijk schreef op 2013-07-20 01:14:
> > Dear Peter,
> > Dear Matthias,
> > Dear group members,
> > 
> > Peter wrote:
> > I ask that you consider that in terms of what level of time I can 
> > devote to DNT in the coming days.
> > 
> > This Wednesday is going to be an important last conference call. We
> > are nearing our self imposed deadline. With audience measurement off
> > the agenda of the call this week, I would like to ask you to consider
> > dedicating the call to discuss the process of how to continue and
> > which W3C instruments we are going to use.
> > 
> > In April I wrote an open letter to the group
> > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Apr/0167.html).
> > I proposed three ways to move forward. 1. for a firm decision towards
> > collection limitation or 2. for a firm decision towards use limitation
> > with clear and specific added value to the existing self regulatory
> > solutions or 3. a firm decision towards for a NoGo (i.e. a premature
> > or controlled closure of the whole multi stakeholder exercise).
> > 
> > 3 Months later, we have made a firm decision for collection limitation
> > through the call for objections procedure. However, with the self
> > imposed deadline in sight, that decision doesn't rule out the option
> > for a controlled shutdown of the group.
> > 
> > There are many issues that come to mind in a NoGO scenario. My point
> > is, we need to discuss these issues during the plenary conference call
> > IMHO. Dedicating the call to discussing our options for the TPE, the
> > current Editor's Working Draft, the June Draft as possible outcomes in
> > case of a both a NoGo scenario needs to be discussed now. For example
> > getting TPE to Last Call may well be worth it in a NoGo scenario. We
> > need to discuss the process of NoGo this week.
> > 
> > There are also many issues that come to mind in a deferred scenario.
> > In the event we defer, we have to hammer through a multitude of
> > unresolved issues. Perhaps a process of going through the 23 Change
> > Proposals by having a weekly call for objections may get us to a
> > result. Perhaps this may lead us to a compliance outcome where no
> > stakeholder is happy with. Trying to bridge the two positions may show
> > once again that the two positions are so far apart that in terms of
> > game theory no optimal solution is possible. My point is, we need to
> > discuss the process of a deferral this week.
> > 
> > In April I was optimistic. There was a window of opportunity for the
> > stakeholders of the advertising industry to do the right things to
> > convince the privacy advocates of the added value that DNT will bring
> > to their self regulatory solutions. That window is closing fast and I
> > sincerely hope we use the time left wisely.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Rob
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Peter Swire schreef op 2013-07-19 03:40:
> > Hello to the group:
> > 
> > After consulting with W3C staff, we are extending the timetable for
> > amendments to ISSUE-25, audience measurement, for one week.
> > 
> > Amendments are now due by Friday, July 26.
> > 
> > People have been working hard in the group, including on the W3C side.
> > Based on the differing opinions shown on this past Wednesday's call,
> > we will not finalize anything on audience measurement before this
> > Wednesday's call.
> > 
> > There are emails to the list asking for responses from W3C on various
> > issues, and criticizing us for not having responded enough this week.
> > 
> > For myself, I am bandwidth constrained right now. I taught four hours
> > of seminar for my supposedly full-time professor job today, and teach
> > four more hours this Sunday. The packers come to my house on Monday to
> > move all of my things to Atlanta next week. The week after I get
> > married. I ask that you consider that in terms of what level of time I
> > can devote to DNT in the coming days.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > 
> > Peter
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> 
> 
>