Re: June Draft of the DNT compliance spec

Thanks Peter. I'm still generally uncomfortable that DNT doesn't place
requirements on First Parties.

One item of particular concern that seems to have fallen off the radar is
the scenario where a party collects data in a first party context and
attempts to use it in a third party context when DNT is enabled. I thought
there was agreement on this issue. However, I keep raising it, and it
doesn't seem to make it into the drafts. Perhaps its implied in the language
"Š customize the content, services, and advertising in the context of the
first party experience." However, it is not clear enough, IMHO.

To address, I offer the following language to Section 4 (First Party
Compliance). The new language is below.

First Parties must not use data collected while a First Party when acting as
a Third-Party when DNT = 1.


Nick ­ if I need to open up another issue on this, please let me know.
Thanks!

Alan
From:  Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>
Date:  Monday, June 10, 2013 7:47 AM
To:  "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject:  June Draft of the DNT compliance spec
Resent-From:  <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:47:58 +0000

> To the Working Group:
>  
>             Attached please find a June Draft of the compliance spec.  The
> spec is also available at:
>  
> 
http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance-june.htm>
l
>  
> This draft builds directly on the Consensus Action Summary from the Sunnyvale
> F2F.  Working closely with W3C staff, and based on numerous discussions with
> members of the WG, this June Draft is my best current estimate of a document
> that can be the basis for a consensus document in time for Last Call.
>  
>             The June Draft includes a number of grammatical and stylistic
> edits to various provisions of the previous working drafts. These sorts of
> edits were done in hopes of adding clarity and good writing to the provisions.
> In the spirit of humility, W3C staff and I recognize that members of the WG
> may spot substantive objections to these stylistic edits ­ let us work within
> a constructive spirit of the working group process to examine and, where
> appropriate, make changes to these edits.
>  
>             The Draft also addresses the four task areas included in the
> Consensus Action Summary.  In proposing language in the June Draft, my intent
> and belief was to make good substantive judgments about an overall package
> that may achieve consensus, as well as item-by-item judgments about what is
> substantively most defensible within the context of the WG.  Clearly, the
> group will need to work through each piece of the text, members can suggest
> alternatives, and we will need to determine where and whether consensus
> exists.
>  
>             The June Draft contains normative text but not non-normative text.
> In part, this reflects my view that we have the best chance to work
> constructively on a relatively short amount of normative text.  Proposed
> non-normative text can be proposed for provisions in time for Last Call. As a
> potentially useful alternative, W3C has various mechanisms for publishing
> notes or other documents that illuminate a standard.  The best time for
> detailed discussion of most non-normative text quite possibly will be after
> Last Call.
>  
>             The June Draft discusses only items that the W3C WG can address.
> Clearly, the actions of others on these issues may be relevant to the overall
> outcome. For instance, the DAA has discussed changes to its code, including on
> its market research and product development exceptions.   There has been
> discussion of a potentially useful limit on any blocking of 3d party cookies
> for sites that comply withDNT.  There may also be new and useful technical
> measures that would be important to the future of advertising in a
> privacy-protective manner.  The text here, as indicated, addresses what would
> be within the compliance spec itself.
>  
>             W3C staff and I are working on further explanatory materials that
> will seek to clarify the changes here, and link the June Draft to the issues
> on the WG site.
>  
>             The regular call this Wednesday will be an opportunity for the
> Group to have an initialdiscussion of the June Draft.  To give everyone a
> chance to review this material, we will not be seeking to close compliance
> issues during this Wednesday¹s calls.
>  
>             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
>