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

Re: Plan moving forward

From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:04:37 +0100
To: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
Cc: Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, public-tracking-announce@w3.org, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, Marc Groman - NAI <mgroman@networkadvertising.org>, Alan Chapell - Chapell Associates <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Message-ID: <4fe913198fa35b0e996a4596a53cabf9@xs4all.nl>

I share Chris's concern here. Although I am inclined to support moving 
over a GENERIC definition of tracking makes sense. Anything else would 
put the moving the TPE to last call unnecessary at risk IMHO.
Rob

Chris Mejia schreef op 2013-10-30 16:55:
> 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>
>  Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:35 AM
>  To: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org>,
> "public-tracking-announce@w3.org" <public-tracking-announce@w3.org>
>  Subject: Plan moving forward
>  Resent-From: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List
> <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
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 16:05:21 UTC

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