Re: ISSUE-5: Consensus definition of "tracking" for the intro?

On 16/10/2013 17:52, Shane M Wiley wrote:

> I likewise echo the positive feelings.
> On your first point, I understand there is capacity to cover a
> broader scope but would recommend we limit v1 to "browsing activity".
> This is the lion share of the issue at hand and I believe builds a
> good launching point for becoming more granular over time.

While I agree with browsers as our first and foremost priority, I'd
rather have the standard worded in such a way that it does not exclude
other UAs a priori. So yes, we already have a lot of work to dowith the
browser alone and should not bother overly much with other UAs, just
let's have a standard that is a robust starting point for future
conversations on other types of UAs.

> On the second point, it's still my hope we can agree on the "easily
> discoverable" approach to sharing affiliate relationships.  I agree
> that contractual relationships are not the appropriate path here and
> we should instead focus on firm concepts of legal ownership and
> control (and common privacy policies) to effectuate a 1st party
> relationship.

I was going to ask David Wainberg as well, but I really would like to
know why nobody on the industry side of the table is pushing harder for
SAME-PARTY for this purpose. Why not use that?



Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 16:06:18 UTC