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

My comments, as promised during the call

From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:04:10 +0200
Message-ID: <525EC70A.4000604@xs4all.nl>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
First of all apologies for my poor audio.

A few comments:

- I wished we had the kind of constructive debate we're having now on
the tracking definition at least a year ago, I would not have had a
preference for option 5 then;
- Which brings me to a question to the chairs: how are we going to
prevent ourselves from sliding back into that quagmire.

Also, my preference for disbanding the group stems from a) that it is
the least likely to prevent from a fresh start later down the line, when
certain parts of industry have woken up to the already existing reality
that their business models require trust as much as data.

I also want to emphasize that W3C may not be the best forum for policy
debates, it is nonetheless a good forum unless you prefer suboptimal
solutions like the EU e-Privacy Directive. That said, W3C becomes a
less-than-useful platform if a substantial amount of stakeholders don't
want to have any meaningful changes to their practices. Not wanting a
standard that deviates from your current practices in any significant
way does not disqualify the genuine attempts of others for having one.
That is the true limit of self-regulation, not the fact that the W3C is
primarily a technical standards body.

Regarding options 3 and/or 4: a TPE-first/only process must result in a
TPE that allows for different compliance regimes. For TPE to really
stand on its own, that means revisiting all built in assumptions of
having a Compliance Spec to begin with, or maybe multiple compliance
regimes. That said, it is an acceptable path forward to me.


Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 17:04:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:19 UTC