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

Re: My comments, as promised during the call

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:37:58 -0400
Message-ID: <525ECEF6.8040005@w3.org>
To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On 10/16/2013 1:04 PM, Walter van Holst wrote:
> 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;

Thanks for noticing!  I also believe that we are on a constructive path.

> - 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.

This is important and useful input.  Thank you.

>   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.
>
> Regards,
>
>   Walter
>
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 17:38:25 UTC

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