Re: June Tracking Compliance and Scope Draft Change Submission

Hi John - 

I understand your frustration. Given the limited time to complete the
assignment and the number of authors, providing a detailed explanations
would have been difficult. Some WG members who picked a smaller set of
issues to address were able to provide more detailed explanations, and I
can see how that might have been helpful. Our group took the approach that
it was better to offer our changes as one document so that (hopefully) the
myriad issues being addressed were resolved more holistically. Given the
number of interdependencies, I thought this the better approach.

Some of the more significant changes were discussed on yesterday's call.
If there's a specific change that you want additional context, please feel
free to ask and I'll do my best to get you the information.

Alan




On 6/27/13 9:16 AM, "John Simpson" <john@consumerwatchdog.org> wrote:

>Jack,
>
>The redline is helpful, but there is another problem.  To me at least it
>is even more serious.  During the working group's deliberations various
>proposals on raised issues have been made. There has always been an
>accompanying explanation and justification for the proposal.  People
>might not have agreed with a proposal, but they at least understood the
>thinking behind it.  You've presented your changes with no context,
>background or explanation.  I find it difficult to take such an 11th-hour
>approach seriously.  Indeed, if I didn't have a thick skin, I'd be
>insulted.
>
>Cheers,
>John 
>
>On Jun 27, 2013, at 4:58 AM, Jack Hobaugh <jack@networkadvertising.org>
>wrote:
>
>> <NAI-DAA-DMA June 26 draft compared to June 22 Tracking Compliance and
>>Scope copy.pdf>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 27 June 2013 13:44:08 UTC