W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > June 2013

Re: June Tracking Compliance and Scope Draft Change Submission

From: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 06:03:13 -0700
Cc: Jack Hobaugh <jack@networkadvertising.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, public-tracking@w3.org
Message-Id: <457E71FA-06DE-44F7-997B-5B4EFB797DE2@consumerwatchdog.org>
To: Marc Groman <mgroman@networkadvertising.org>, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Colleagues,

I am trying to reconcile Shane's slides explaining data de-identification  with the advertising industry's rewrite of the June Draft and understand how they relate to each other.  As I understand the slides,  certain permitted uses would use more restricted data sets -- yellow instead of red, for example.


I don't see where how that is spelled out in your re-written specification.  Could someone please explain  how what is suggested in the slides is actually included in your text.  You define the de-identification process, but it is not at all clear to me how that is supposed to relate to permitted uses.

As is often the case, I may be missing something, but could you please explain where the text ties the various types of data sets to a permitted use?

Thank you,
John


On Jun 27, 2013, at 6:47 AM, Marc Groman <mgroman@networkadvertising.org> wrote:

> Good Morning John, 
> 
> While I appreciate and understand your request, given the very limited time provided for pulling this together, a line by line commentary was not possible by noon yesterday.  This is not an 11th hour approach, but a response to the recently released June document as requested by the Co-Chairs.  Everyone (believe me - everyone) is frustrated by the aggressive timeline set by the Co-Chairs.  We look forward to working with everyone to both understand this document and consider the wide range of issues now before the group.  We also thought that Shane would have more time to discuss the details on yesterday's call and answer questions, but unfortunately we didn't have time. 
> 
> Thank you very much. 
> 
> Sincerely, 
> 
> Marc 
> 
> ---
> 
> Marc M. Groman
> Network Advertising Initiative | Executive Director and General Counsel 
> 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
> P: 202-835-9810 | mgroman@networkadvertising.org 
> 
> 
> <logo_NAI.gif>
> 
> On Jun 27, 2013, at 9:16 AM, John Simpson 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 Friday, 28 June 2013 13:03:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:42 UTC