Re: Plan moving forward

Colleagues,

I have to say that this "plan forward" concerns me.  From my read below, this looks more like options 1 and 2 from the poll, which decidedly had little support from the working group.  From previous working group discussions, it looked like staff would choose between options 3 and 4, or some hybrid thereof— but I don't think most working group members believe the plan written below to be that hybrid.  Specifically, I am concerned with:

"We will also port over from the Compliance specification many of the definitions, including parties, first parties, third parties, network transaction, collect/retain/use/share, user, user agent, and service provider.  The TPE will also include a definition of tracking…"

Porting of definitions from the Compliance Spec to the TPE seems like an obvious merger of the two.  Definitions are core to the context of compliance (especially in practice), and in my opinion, should be left in a compliance document (defined by whichever compliance regime the browser elects to honor), not in the technical specification.  For the TPE, I think it would be easy enough to state something to the effect of "for definitions, refer to the Compliance Specification".

Given our history as a working group, I'm afraid this strategy of porting definitions to the TPE will lead us right back to where we ended up before the poll— at a stalemate, based on disagreements (many jurisdictionally and culturally based) around compliance.  Least objectionable should not be conflated with consensus, and as such, the call for objections process is ill suited for this kind of policy making.

To be constructive, I think the best path forward (given that option 5, not continuing, was taken off the table for discussion) would be to simply and cleanly issue the TPE, period, full-stop.  Let the appropriate regulatory and self-regulatory bodies in each jurisdiction define compliance, for their people, if they wish.

One definition of insanity that seems appropriate here:  "doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results".

Chris


Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group | Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB | chris.mejia@iab.net


From: Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com<mailto:cargill@adobe.com>>
Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:35 AM
To: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, "public-tracking-announce@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking-announce@w3.org>" <public-tracking-announce@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking-announce@w3.org>>
Subject: Plan moving forward
Resent-From: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:35 AM


All -

The basis of the discussion of Item 3 on the agenda for 30 October.

=====

The Chairs and W3C have listened to your feedback, and based on the poll results and the information we received during the October 16 call, we are revising the Plan to finalize the TWPG deliverables as follows:

Based on the feedback received, the chairs propose to prioritize getting the TPE out to last call for implementation and testing.  We will work through and close out all remaining TPE issues in the coming weeks' calls.  We will also port over from the Compliance specification many of the definitions, including parties, first parties, third parties, network transaction, collect/retain/use/share, user, user agent, and service provider.  The TPE will also include a definition of tracking --- of what the signal is intended to indicate --- unless the group decides that such a definition is not necessary.  (The definitions of de-identified and graduated response pertain exclusively to compliance issues, and probably do not need to be ported over, however the working group members will ultimately decide which definitions are necessary for TPE to progress.)  If there are other Compliance issues that the group believes we need to close out because of dependencies or other reasons, we may prioritize those as well.  By my calculation, there are approximately 10 open or raised issues against a slightly expanded TPE, and 7 issues in pending review.  It is my hope that we can cycle through these issues in 14 calls (or less), which would have us wrapping up in February.

Once we have finalized the TPE specification. we will resume working on a compliance specification.  We will then proceed to close out the remaining issues against that document.  W3C believes that web users need a unified compliance standard, so that there can be one consistent expectation for how DNT signals will be treated.  However, one of the open issues that we will consider for TPE is whether to include a field that would allow a server to indicate an alternative compliance regime.  We will resolve that issue based on the consensus of the working group.

We will be seeking consensus and closing out issues under the timing and structure previously described by Matthias.  On the call Wednesday, if we are unable to come to agreement on Issues 5 and 10, we will proceed to a Call for Objections on those two issues, and working group members will have two weeks to register their objections to the options.  The Chairs will then choose among the options based on which options have the least strong objections.

We will take some time during the call to answer any questions you have, or feel free to send questions to the mailing list.  After Wednesday's call, we will shift to the new plan and in parallel schedule a meeting to get advice and ensure alignment with the W3C Director.

Justin, Carl, and Matthias