RE: Selecting a subset of texts for preparing ISSUE-5 for a call for objection

Walter's last post (where is mentioned a multitude of compliance specs,
suggests another way forward .


Maybe we could have a broad definition of terms in the TPE introduction
section,  including a non-technical definition of tracking, i.e. not
referring to the parties qualification. The DNT signal would reflect a
general wish not to be tracked in the colloquial sense, with compliance
determined by the market or local law.


We could then allow for different regional compliance documents, which
parties could choose to comply with. The choice would be indicated in the
tracking resource or status, and available to be displayed by the UA. I
think David W suggested similar last year, but we thought we would have had
an agreement on this by now.






From: Justin Brookman [] 
Sent: 25 October 2013 20:35
To: Marc Groman
Cc: (
Subject: Re: Selecting a subset of texts for preparing ISSUE-5 for a call
for objection


Sure.  For example, I have previously argued that we don't need to define
tracking.  However, the rest of the group seemed to overwhelmingly support
it.  So the paths forward that the Chairs are considering all include a
definition of tracking.  I would love it if the group were to coalesce
around one of the options, but as we heard on the call Wednesday, it sounds
like some of the participants just have a fundamental disagreement.  So
we're trying to nail down two or three final, concrete options.


On Oct 25, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Marc Groman <>

I don't know that I agree with that.  I think there are potential paths
forward that do not require those terms to be defined in a TPE.  


Marc M. Groman

President & Chief Executive Officer 
Network Advertising Initiative 

1634 Eye Street NW., Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
P: 202-835-9810 | 




On Oct 25, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Justin Brookman wrote:

Well, we're still shoring up the options for definitions of tracking and
parties this week.  Those are foundational concepts, and will need to be
defined no matter how the group proceeds (unless it were to shut down work
entirely).  So people should continue to work together to help consolidate
options (and I appreciate that you have been offering constructive text and
options, David!), 

On Oct 25, 2013, at 1:30 PM, David Wainberg <> wrote:

+1 Before we continue substantive work , we need an understanding of what
path we're on.

On 2013-10-25 1:27 PM, John Simpson wrote:

Thanks  for raising this Shane. The group needs to understand fully how the
chairs and the W3C staff perceived the information received in the poll, the
lack of comments by a majority of the working group and the observations
made in the telephone meeting and how they propose to go forward in a
meaningful way.
On Oct 25, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Shane M Wiley  <>
<> wrote:

Will the Co-Chairs and W3C Staff be sharing the official position on how
best to move forward post the poll results review?  On Oct 16th I asked how
long we should expect for this to occur and the response at that time was
about 2 weeks.  With that in mind, it's my expectation we'll learn this at
next week's meeting.  Is that a fair expectation?
Thank you,
- Shane
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) [] 
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 9:46 AM
To: (
Subject: Selecting a subset of texts for preparing ISSUE-5 for a call for
Hi Team,
for preparation of next week's call, I would like to assemble a shortlist of
proposals that we use for the call for objections:
I took the liberty and added the text discussed in last week's telco
(revised Proposal 1) as a first initial candidate since I perceived support
from several members of the group.
If you cannot live with any of the proposals currently shortlisted, please
nominate an extra one to shortlist while explaining
    - What is the shortcoming of the currently shortlisted proposals
    - How does the newly added proposal mitigate this shortcoming
This will enable me to compile a list of (hopefully) less than 7
alternatives to then use as the set of alternatives on our call for
Thanks a lot!





Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 20:11:43 UTC