RE: June Draft - Change Proposal to First Party Compliance

We could add a similar statement to every section of the document that says "Parties MAY choose to do more."  It's such a generic and obvious statement that it seem wasteful to go out of our way to state it.

- Shane

From: Chris Pedigo [mailto:CPedigo@online-publishers.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:31 AM
To: John Simpson; Alan Chapell
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: RE: June Draft - Change Proposal to First Party Compliance

John and Alan, no, I am not advocating that a 1st party must only meet the 1st party requirements and nothing more.  I do think there will competition among 1st parties to be more privacy friendly - both in the collection and use of data and also in how they message that to users.

My concern is that this sentence is so obvious and thus seems to imply we mean something else.  After we have finished, I think this standard will have legs either in self-regulatory bodies or state legislatures or other fora.  And, this sentence might be interpreted down the road in different ways, potentially to create tiers of regulatory compliance or tiers of treatment by browsers.  "May" might be interpreted as a best practice, for instance.  For a technical standard, I think this sentence is out of place.

From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:53 AM
To: Alan Chapell
Cc: Chris Pedigo; public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)
Subject: Re: June Draft - Change Proposal to First Party Compliance

Chris,

I'm confused here.  All this says, as I understand it,  is that 1st parties can choose to follow more privacy friendly practices if they choose.  Seems to me that might mean some sites would compete around privacy issues.  What's wrong with that?

Are you suggesting that all 1st parties must only meet the minimum first party requirements and nothing more?


Best.
John


On Jun 26, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com<mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>> wrote:

Chris - can you help me understand what you mean by tiers of compliance for first parties?

From: Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org<mailto:CPedigo@online-publishers.org>>
Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:39 AM
To: "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: June Draft - Change Proposal to First Party Compliance
Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:40:27 +0000

In Section 4, I propose to strike the last sentence - "First parties MAY elect to follow third party practices."

This sentence is obvious and unnecessary.  I fear that it would be used by some to create tiers of compliance for first parties.

Chris Pedigo
VP, Government Affairs
Online Publishers Association
(202) 744-2967