Re: June Draft of the DNT compliance spec -- comparison with previous

Hello Working Group,

Here is the comparison document of the April 29, 2013 Tracking Compliance
and Scope Editors' Draft with the June Draft.

Thank you,
Yianni


On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net> wrote:

> The document comparison is being drafted by W3C staff.
>
> It will circulate as soon as it is ready -- some of those working on it
> were not available to work this weekend.
>
> 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
>
>
> From: Ed Felten <felten@CS.Princeton.EDU>
> Date: Monday, June 10, 2013 12:50 PM
> To: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>
> Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: June Draft of the DNT compliance spec
>
> Is it possible to get a redline that shows what has changed from previous
> versions?  That would help everybody understand what they might want to
> discuss about this version.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.html
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> 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 Wednesday’s 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Edward W. Felten
> Professor of Computer Science and Public Affairs
> Director, Center for Information Technology Policy
> Princeton University
> 609-258-5906           http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~felten
>