Re: TPWG Agenda for the October 16 call (V02)

Carl--I don't think it's an ad hominem attack.  As someone who follows Adobe, I am very concerned about its data profiling role (undisclosed so far in the discussions of the WG).  The activities of many of the companies on the WG raise troubling questions, which should be on the agenda.  Can such a group be honestly tasked to truly protect global Internet users, given their employers priorities and the direction of the industry.

As I suggested to Jeff J. weeks ago, we should bring in a new team of people with technical and policy expertise that do not have any conflicts of interest.  They should propose what the spec should do.

I hope that's on your agenda.

Jeff


Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
www.democraticmedia.org
www.digitalads.org
202-986-2220

On Oct 16, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Carl Cargill wrote:

> Jeffery –
>  
> I expected better than argumentum  ad hominem from you.
>  
> If you will take time to read the note I sent, we are trying to do exactly what you have asked for and “explore what new approaches” for all of the issues involved – not merely those appealing to one or two of the interests involved in the discussion.
>  
> I am looking forward to your positive comments on how we’d achieve the results for which you’re looking.
>  
> Sincerely,
>  
> Carl
> Carl Cargill
> Principal Scientist, Standards
> Adobe Systems
> Cargill@adobe.com
> Office: +1 541 488 0040
> Mobile: +1 650 759 9803
> @AdobeStandards
> http://blogs.adobe.com/standards
>  
>  
>  
> From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:54 AM
> To: Carl Cargill
> Cc: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; Thomas Schauf; Mike Zaneis; Jack L. Hobaugh Jr; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org); team-tracking-chairs@w3.org (team-tracking-chairs@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: TPWG Agenda for the October 16 call (V02)
>  
> Carl
>  
> Given Adobe's own role in the expansion of data collection, I am disappointed-- but not surprised-- that you only want so-called good news.  The group should honestly confront its conflict of interests, and explore what new approaches regarding ethical decision-making should be adopted.
>  
>  
> Jeff
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Jeffrey Chester
> Center for Digital Democracy
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
> Washington, DC 20009
> www.democraticmedia.org
> www.digitalads.org
> 202-986-2220
>  
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Carl Cargill wrote:
> 
> 
> Jeffery –
>  
> While your comment in a mail format is accepted, please keep in mind that the discussion today is focused on positive comments that help the group to move forward and meet its charter objectives, not disputatious responses to other comments.
>  
> I await your positive contribution on how the group can succeed with the framework of its remit.
>  
> Thank you –
>  
> Carl Cargill
>  
> Carl Cargill
> Principal Scientist, Standards
> Adobe Systems
> Cargill@adobe.com
> Office: +1 541 488 0040
> Mobile: +1 650 759 9803
> @AdobeStandards
> http://blogs.adobe.com/standards
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:14 AM
> To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
> Cc: Carl Cargill; Thomas Schauf; Mike Zaneis; Jack L. Hobaugh Jr; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org); team-tracking-chairs@w3.org(team-tracking-chairs@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: TPWG Agenda for the October 16 call (V02)
>  
> The FTC has called for privacy legislation, as has the Obama Administration.  The EU, as we all know, is currently debating new regulations.  It's not a surprise that the industry--here at the WC3 and through its self-regulatory regimes--cannot establish technical safeguards.  Most companies and the members of the trade associations are involved in "data maximization" strategies, with dramatic expansion of data collection on individuals, social groups, and communities.  What's going on is deeply disturbing.
>  
> Self-regulation is not even a band-aid to what's been unleashed via hyper geo-location, social marketing, and expanded data broker partnership targeting, etc.
>  
> It would be important for the WC3 leadership to speak out about why its DNT initiative has failed.  In my view it's because many of its corporate members and funders have a serious conflict of interest regarding privacy.  The very companies (with few exceptions) tasked to protect users are the ones engaged in gathering their data.   
>  
> I hope Tim Berners-Lee will engage in some soul-searching, and address why this process has been a failure.  The debate unleashed by the Snowden revelations should be sufficient for him to take a strong public position about why more needs to be done to protect Internet privacy.  
>  
> I won't be on the calls for the next 3 weeks, due to privacy related work.
>  
> Jeff
>  
>  
> Center for Digital Democracy
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
> Washington, DC 20009
> www.democraticmedia.org
> www.digitalads.org
> 202-986-2220
>  
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 8:49 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Regrets for this call, on a plane.
>  
> Here is my input to the request for clarification on the poll response.
>  
> I voted to continue the TPE only because it's become clear that the compliance issues go far beyond the technical scope that W3C is best focused on, and self-regulation will address it, once there is an agreed signal definition (the only necessary technical work). This was my position at the start of the group, and it has only been strengthened through the process.
>  
> In the US, the FTC and other position papers clearly called for reasonable industry (not exclusively by the W3C) action on commonly accepted business practices ("acceptable uses"), while preserving the freedom for technical innovation on solutions to that goal. The compliance work in TPWG, though useful as a dialog (and potentially as a W3C Note) has only served to harden the lines between the stakeholders. We need time and implementation/user experience to address the tougher, socio-political issues of what privacy (and tracking as a facet of it) means, and I am not sure there is a technical solution to that (or a need for one).
> 
> Thanks,
> Bryan Sullivan
> 
> On Oct 15, 2013, at 11:13 PM, "Carl Cargill" <cargill@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> Thomas –
>  
> You have made the point well – the discussion tomorrow is exactly focused on “… a discussion as a follow up to the results of the poll and taking them into account.”  We are asking all of those that voted (43 people) to present their views on why they voted as they did, and then – time permitting, following that with comments from those that did not vote. We are trying to move towards a positive resolution of the issues upon which we poled the membership. In this case there were five “majority decisions” – each of the questions had a majority (as well as a minority) vote. As with any poll, however, the results to the questions require discussion and interpretation – and that’s what we’re affording the members a chance to have tomorrow.
>  
> As I said in my earlier messages, please read the agenda, rather than the commentary on the agenda. The agenda is very clear that “… the TPWG Chairs and W3C Management team feel that there is a desire to move forward, but we also feel is in necessary to spend some effort both improving or changing the plan; and working with the WG to build confidence in the plan.  To that end, we will be structuring the discussion to allow everyone on the call a chance to provide constructive suggestions to move the group forward. The Chairs will use this input to re-think the plan and process.  We want to have the benefit of this dialog before we sit down with the Director to review the poll results.” (Emphasis mine.)
>  
> I note that you did take time to respond to the poll, so I look forward to your constructive comments to help the chairs and committee move forward and succeed during the in the session tomorrow.
>  
> Carl
>  
>  
> Carl Cargill
> Principal Scientist, Standards
> Adobe Systems
> Cargill@adobe.com
> Office: +1 541 488 0040
> Mobile: +1 650 759 9803
> @AdobeStandards
> http://blogs.adobe.com/standards
>  
>  
>  
> From: Thomas Schauf [mailto:schauf@bvdw.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:47 PM
> To: Carl Cargill; Mike Zaneis
> Cc: Jack L. Hobaugh Jr; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org); team-tracking-chairs@w3.org (team-tracking-chairs@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: TPWG Agenda for the October 16 call (V02)
>  
> Dear all,
>  
> I am a bit confused and share the view, that the results of the poll are not considered up to now. If they never will be, why then the whole exercise? I understood it as a decsion on the direction of this working Group.
> As an employee of an association, I learned that the majority decisions, expressing the members will, must be respected in the work - if it is not case in here, I am very irritated and see decicits in the democratic self-understanding of this group or some of its protagonists.
>  
> So at least, I expect a discussion as a follow up to the results of the poll and taking them into account.
>  
> Regards,
> Thomas
>  
> Thomas Schauf
> Head of European & International Affairs
> 
> Bundesverband Digitale Wirtschaft (BVDW) e.V.
> Berliner Allee 57
> D-40212 Düsseldorf
> Präsident: Matthias Ehrlich
> Vizepräsidenten: Christoph N. von Dellingshausen, Harald R. Fortmann, Achim Himmelreich, Ulrich Kramer, Burkhard Leimbrock
> Geschäftsführer: Tanja Feller, Harald Kratel
> Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, VR 8258
> 
> sent via Mobile.
>  
> Von: Mike Zaneis
> Gesendet: ‎Mittwoch‎, ‎16‎. ‎Oktober‎ ‎2013 ‎04‎:‎12
> An: Carl Cargill
> Cc: Jack L. Hobaugh Jr, public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org), team-tracking-chairs@w3.org (team-tracking-chairs@w3.org), Carl Cargill
>  
> The group has not yet discussed the poll and the Chairs have not yet issued a decision on how to proceed, but you are already saying definitively that we won't change the charter (necessary in order to make Option 4 possible) and we won't stop the work of the group (Option 5), then why were those options listed in the poll?
> 
> Mike Zaneis
> SVP & General Counsel, IAB
> (202) 253-1466
>  
> 
> On Oct 15, 2013, at 10:04 PM, "Carl Cargill" <cargill@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> Mike,
>  
> With due respect, you seem to have adopted a very adversarial approach to tomorrow. To respond to your question of “then isn’t tomorrow’s call just window dressing for a predetermined decision by the W3C to disregard the will of the Working Group participants…” the short answer is “No, it’s not”.
>  
> The full quote from my response to Jack – from which you abstracted part - was “I do not believe that the issues will either expand or contract with the poll results – the only thing that will change (in probability, given the nature of the group) will be a structuring and ordering of the issues.” In the context in which the answer was given was the request for yet another delay before we had a deadline for submissions. That was rejected. 
>  
> Let me try to make the intent of tomorrow clear. The chairs are looking for positive and or creative ways of moving the work of the group forward. 
> My original agenda contains the following:
>  
> Given this background, the TPWG Chairs and W3C Management team feel that there is a desire to move forward, but we also feel is in necessary to spend some effort both improving or changing the plan; and working with the WG to build confidence in the plan.  To that end, we will be structuring the discussion to allow everyone on the call a chance to provide constructive suggestions to move the group forward. The Chairs will use this input to re-think the plan and process.  We want to have the benefit of this dialog before we sit down with the Director to review the poll results. (The emphasis is mine and it is added.)
>  
> Rather than tie up cycles responding to my response to Jack, I’d prefer that you look at the primary document rather than a derivative document. Tomorrow we are looking for positive suggestions on how to make this group succeed. We will not change the charter. Given the hard fact of the charter, and given the hard need to have standardization process that is predicated upon the ability to achieve consensus, and given the results of the poll, we have work to do.
>  
> I am hoping that you will contribute tomorrow with a suggestion on how to meet these various goals in a cooperative environment. Since we will be using response list as the basis of the queue, I am not sure that we will get to  you (even if others don’t use their three minutes) since we’ve committed to those who voted as having preference in the queue.   
>  
> Carl
>  
>  
> Carl Cargill
> Principal Scientist, Standards
> Adobe Systems
> Cargill@adobe.com
> Office: +1 541 488 0040
> Mobile: +1 650 759 9803
> @AdobeStandards
> http://blogs.adobe.com/standards
>  
>  
> From: Mike Zaneis [mailto:mike@iab.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:38 PM
> To: Carl Cargill; Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org); team-tracking-chairs@w3.org (team-tracking-chairs@w3.org)
> Subject: RE: TPWG Agenda for the October 16 call (V02)
>  
> Carl,
>  
> If, as you say, “the only thing that will change (in probability, given the nature of the group) will be a structuring and ordering of the issues”, then do we even need tomorrow’s call?  If the group voted that they did not support the current process, but the Chairs are telling us that the only thing that is going to change is a rearranging of the deck chairs, with no change to the actual process, then isn’t tomorrow’s call just window dressing for a predetermined decision by the W3C to disregard the will of the Working Group participants? 
>  
> Further to the apparent predetermination of the Chairs, in the same statement you disregarded Options 4 or 5 of the poll when you state that, “(t)he need to complete both specifications has not gone away”.
>  
> If this has already been determined then why are we wasting an entire week discussing the options?  Or am my missing something fundamental in your explanation?
>  
> Mike Zaneis
> SVP & General Counsel
> Interactive Advertising Bureau
> (202) 253-1466
>  
> Follow me on Twitter @mikezaneis
>  
>  
> From: Carl Cargill [mailto:cargill@adobe.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 6:16 PM
> To: Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org); Carl Cargill; team-tracking-chairs@w3.org (team-tracking-chairs@w3.org)
> Subject: RE: TPWG Agenda for the October 16 call (V02)
>  
> Jack –
>  
> Thank you for the mail of this morning.
>  
> I have considered your request, and have discussed it with another chair and members of the team.   Unfortunately, because we are attempting to minimize the time it takes to move to completion, I am going to have to respond that the due date suffer no further delays. (Please note that we have already, at your request, extended it two weeks.)  
>  
> The additional supporting material is absolutely necessary for us (as chairs and as a group) as we look at the results of the poll and what changes may be necessary. It is our (the chairs) basic material for schedule consideration and comment resolution.  The need to complete both specifications has not gone away – nor have the substantive comments are relevant to the issues at hand. I do not believe that the issues will either expand or contract with the poll results – the only thing that will change (in probability, given the nature of the group) will be a structuring and ordering of the issues.  The issues – and the comments supporting them – should remain the both identical and valid.
>  
> With respect to your concerns about the volunteer participants – I point out that the chairs too fall in that category, and that we too are subject to competing priorities and also are attempting to allocate our resources. Hence, the willingness to devote an entire session in discussion of the issues raised in the poll and a stock-taking of how the members of the would like to improve the activities to be more efficient in meeting the goals of the charter – and reduce, ultimately, the time necessary to complete.
>  
> I hope that this note answers your request and satisfies you with the reason for not extending the deadline. I note that you are scheduled for a slot tomorrow, and look forward to hearing your suggestions on a way forward.
>  
> Carl
>  
> Carl Cargill
> Principal Scientist, Standards
> Adobe Systems
> Cargill@adobe.com
> Office: +1 541 488 0040
> Mobile: +1 650 759 9803
> @AdobeStandards
> http://blogs.adobe.com/standards
>  
>  
>  
> From: Jack L. Hobaugh Jr [mailto:jack@networkadvertising.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 7:45 AM
> To: Carl Cargill
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: TPWG Agenda for the October 16 call (V02)
>  
> Good Morning Carl,
>  
> Thank you for providing the modified agenda for Wednesday, the TPWG Chairs' initial thoughts on the poll results, and the rules for Wednesday's call.
>  
> With so much up in the air, I respectfully request the TPWG Chairs' to please consider suspending at least the October 16 due date for providing additional material against the newly submitted issues.  Providing substantive additional material requires significant resources from participants in the TPWG and others within their organizations.  As you can imagine, it is difficult to make responding to the October 16 deadline a top priority after the poll has indicated the current path forward will at least be modified.  This very real resource issue and concern reflects the views of many of the volunteer participants in the TPWG from all sides of the discussion who have competing priorities and are seeking to efficiently allocate scarce resources. 
>  
> The TPWG Chairs' timely consideration of suspending the October 16 deadline would be greatly appreciated.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Jack
>  
> Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
> Network Advertising Initiative | Counsel & Senior Director of Technology 
> 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
> P: 202-347-5341 | jack@networkadvertising.org
>  
>  
>  
> 
>  
> On Oct 13, 2013, at 10:01 PM, Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com> wrote:
>  
> 
> All -
> 
> Below is the modified agenda for next Wednesday, 16 October 2013.
> 
> The session will be focused on the recently completed poll and is intended to help the chairs, management team, and the committee more thoroughly understand and appreciate the results.
> 
> It is intended to be a brainstorming session in which comments are solicited to help us understand why members voted as they did.  Because of the number of responses we have (43), we’ll limit each comment to 3 or less minutes (brevity is prized). As in any brainstorming session, the emphasis is on constructive comments that are intended to help the chairs and committee move forward and succeed.
> 
> Comments and suggestions on the agenda are welcomed.
> 
> Carl Cargill
> 
> ===========
> 
> 1. Confirmation of scribe.  Volunteers welcome
> 
> 2. Offline-caller-identification (see end for instructions)
> 
> 3. DISCUSSIONS
> 
> The session this week will center on a discussion of the poll that was completed this past week.  With the results in, there are several conclusions that can be drawn from the results.
> 
> 1.    A significant minority of participants prefer to stop the group (Option 5), although the majority would like to continue the work in some form.
> 
> 2.    While the majority wanted to continue the group, a considerable number recommended a different plan by opting for options 3 or option 4.
> 
> 3.    There is dissatisfaction with the current process and the way to progress the committee.
> 
>  
> 
> Given this background, the TPWG Chairs and W3C Management team feel that there is a desire to move forward, but we also feel is in necessary to spend some effort both improving or changing the plan; and working with the WG to build confidence in the plan.  To that end, we will be structuring the discussion to allow everyone on the call a chance to provide constructive suggestions to move the group forward. The Chairs will use this input to re-think the plan and process.  We want to have the benefit of this dialog before we sit down with the Director to review the poll results
> 
> Each member of the committee will be allowed to speak to speak to describe how to improve the plan, process, or working group confidence (until we run out of time.)  To make time for everyone possible, we’ll limit comments to 3 minutes. I will rigorously enforce the 3 minute limit, and will also work to the following brainstorming rules – that is, no criticism or other’s ideas, and one or two positive proposals for moving the group forward. You may build on a previous suggestion; you may not critique or criticize one. We are working within a confined scope (defined by the charter) and will expect comments within that framework.  All comments will be considered by the chairs.
> 
> Underlying assumptions:
> 
> the current Charter will not be revised or modified;
> The group will continue work and will produce a specification (or two) that will focus on solving the issue specified in the charter.
> Your proposal may be augmented by sending the committee something in support of your comments before or after the discussion on Wednesday. To be effective, we’d suggest no more than two days after the discussion.
> 
> We will also be reporting the results of the discussion and poll to the Director for his use in determination of the necessity of changes in direction or of the continuation of the committee.
> 
> N.B.  I will be unreasonably quick and merciless in stopping comments that are either out of scope or critical of other’s comments or suggestions.
> 
> In the discussions, preference for speaking will be given to those who cast a vote since they have obviously formed and expressed an opinion, and we’d like to know (more of) their reasons for their votes. We will start at the top of the responders list and work our way down the list. There were 43 responses.  Three and a half minutes each (.5 minute to switch) gives us a total of 150 minutes; we have 90 minutes available. We will cover as many of the possible respondents as possible in the allocated time.  Those who do not have a chance to speak and wished to make a point may do so via e-mail.
> 
> While I appreciate that this is a relatively Draconian approach, it is the only method by which the chairs feel that we can get positive suggestions on a structured manner in a short time.
> 
>  
> 
> ======  Infrastructure ===========
> 
> Zakim teleconference bridge:
> 
> VoIP:    sip:zakim@voip.w3.org
> 
> Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225) IRC Chat: irc.w3.org<http://irc.w3.org/>, port 6665, #dnt
> 
> OFFLINE caller identification:
> 
> If you intend to join the phone call, you must either associate your phone number with your IRC username once you've joined the call
> 
> (command: "Zakim, [ID] is [name]" e.g., "Zakim, ??P19 is schunter" in my case), or let Nick know your phone number ahead of time. If you are not comfortable with the Zakim IRC syntax for associating your phone number, please email your name and phone number to npdoty@w3.org<mailto:npdoty@w3.org>. We want to reduce (in fact, eliminate) the time spent on the call identifying phone numbers. Note that if your number is not identified and you do not respond to off-the-phone reminders via IRC, you will be dropped from the call.
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>