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

Re: Feedback on Proposed Plan from IAB, DAA, DMA and NAI

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 08:33:59 +0200
Message-ID: <52340357.4040603@schunter.org>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Hi Chris,

thanks a lot for your extensive and detailed feedback. I appreciate your 
inputs and will respond before Sept 18 with an updated plan and a 
response to your inputs.


On 14/09/2013 00:31, Chris Mejia wrote:
> Dear TPWG Chair, W3C Staff, and fellow TPWG Members,
> In accordance with the September 13th deadline for feedback on "the 
> proposed plan", I respectfully provide the following feedback on the 
> proposed plan and process:
> IAB, DAA, DMA, and NAI incorporates by reference, their objections 
> submitted on July 12, 2013.  See 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/datahygiene/results.
> In addition to renewing their objections to the use of the Editors' 
> draft as the basis for moving forward, IAB, DAA, DMA, and NAI also 
> respectfully submit the following feedback in opposition to proceeding 
> with the proposed plan:
> 1.Genuine Working Group consensus cannot be achieved through the 
> proposed plan and it remains entirely unclear what "consensus" means 
> or how it is reached.
> The W3C contends that "[t]he Editors' Draft (based on the June draft) 
> represents the most promising path toward consensus of the Working 
> Group on the Tracking Compliance document."  (Sep. 3, 2013 email from 
> M. Schunter to public-tracking@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>).  But it is clear from the TPWG's 
> unsuccessful efforts in June and July to reach consensus with the June 
> draft that the June draft does */_not_/* present a viable document 
> from which to reach consensus.  Although the term consensus is often 
> used, it is unclear as to exactly what that term means or what is 
> actually required to reach consensus.  In conjunction with moving 
> forward with a document that cannot create consensus, the W3C has also 
> expressed its intention to close one issue per week starting in 
> October. /Id./  "If there is no consensus, then the Chairs will issue 
> a Call for Objections.  In this case, the resolution will be based on 
> the Chairs' assessment of the relative strength of the arguments. 
>  Working Group decisions made through a Call for Objections are also 
> documented in a revision of the Editors' Draft." /Id./  This process 
> of arbitrary decision making will likely create a disjointed 
> patch-work document that would be neither the product of the working 
> group nor a cohesive compliance document that could be adopted.  Mr. 
> Fielding, who has significant W3C experience, has expressed similar 
> concerns with the co-chairs taking over the decision making process 
> for the working group:
> <*fielding*> In general, W3C staff have often (over 15+ years) made 
> the mistake that they can speed the process of a working group by 
> making decisions for the WG in the form of "simplifying". In all such 
> cases, the WG derails ... making decisions for the WG means that there 
> is no reason to have a WG, since you aren't letting us make the 
> decisions that matter. Hence, in the future, stop trying to wag the 
> dog -- let the group make its own decisions and act as a facilitator,
> <*fielding*> not a judge.
> Found at http://www.w3.org/2013/09/04-dnt-minutes.
> 2.The Due Dates suggest that the Poll is an exercise in futility.
> Because the W3C is proceeding with Option 1 prior to the opening of 
> the poll to discuss other options, it is apparent that the W3C is 
> intent on moving forward with the proposed plan regardless of the 
> outcome of the Poll.  "The clear recommendation from the Chair/Staff 
> is to make progress with Options 1 or 2."   (Sep. 3, 2013 email from 
> M. Schunter to public-tracking@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>).  We note that Option 2 only pushes 
> out the hard issues to a later version of the standard. 
>  Unfortunately, the hard issues, those that cannot find consensus, are 
> at the heart of the standard itself.  Indeed, the W3C has suggested 
> that the technology is not ready for a DNT standard: "Thus, we are 
> focused on the appropriate DNT solution for release in 2013-14 which 
> we call DNT 1.0.  As technology and user references evolve, we fully 
> expect that there will be further releases that address *_scenarios 
> that are not well addressed today_*."   (Sep. 3, 2013 email from M. 
> Schunter to public-tracking@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)(emphasis added).  DAA, IAB, NAI, ANA, 
> AAAA, DMA object to the W3C's approach of moving forward before the 
> analysis of the poll results.
> 3.Move the issue closing process to one based on membership voting. 
> This would fast track the process and could still allow for a formal 
> objection process to follow. This mirrors the escalation structure to 
> ACRs and has been discussed in the past.  This process would be 
> limited to W3C membership as they represent actual implementers of 
> standards.
> **
> 4.Consensus and decision-making
> oWhat exactly is the standard for consensus?
> oIf the standard is "least strong objections," then please clarify 
> what this means? Does it mean least strong substantively, or least 
> strong in terms of the vigor of  the objection, e.g. "my business will 
> be killed by this and I can't live with it!"
> oWhose opinions count in weighing consensus, e.g. invited experts or 
> multiple reps from a single organization?
> 5.Participation
> a.Who is an invited expert and how are they chosen?
> b.Third parties are the primary target of this standard, and the 
> companies likely to be most impacted economically. Why are so few 
> represented directly in the working group, and what will be done to 
> increase their participation?
> c.Understanding that there should be a periodic review of invited 
> experts per W3C rules (http://www.w3.org/2004/08/invexp "Principles 
> Guiding Invitations and Periodic Review"), can you please disclose 
> when such reviews have occurred, if ever, on which invited experts, 
> the  determination of those reviews, and the rationale used for such 
> determination?  If no such review has been conducted, can you please 
> supply the rationale for not conducting the reviews and indicate when 
> such reviews will take place?
> d.In our opinion, most of the "invited experts" represent 
> organizations "which have significant business interest in the results 
> from W3C" noting that the W3C rules themselves state "this might even 
> include some not-for-profit organizations."
> e.At least two invited experts have submitted their formal resignation 
> from the working group, but have not yet been removed from the TPWG 
> official roster.
> 6.Charter
> a.What is the meaning of "The Working Group will not design mechanisms 
> for the expression of complex or general-purpose policy statements."
> b.What is the intent of this limitation?
> c.What is the meaning of "The group will actively engage governmental, 
> industry, academic and advocacy organizations to seek global consensus 
> definitions and codes of conduct."
> d.See participation above. What has the group done to ensure active 
> engagement with /all/ relevant stakeholders, especially those who will 
> likely be most impacted by this standard?
> 7.What are the criteria and milestones for continuing or winding down 
> the group, if progress is not made?
> 8.W3C process requires an implementation and testing phase. How will 
> this apply to the compliance specification? Can elements of the 
> compliance spec become "features at risk"? What about crucial elements 
> of the technical spec that are closely coupled with the policy?
> 9.Provide detailed timelines and decision criteria for each Formal 
> Objection being considered prior to requesting WG input.
> 10.More firmly state within the updated plan that driving towards a 
> standard that will achieve broad industry adoption is a core goal 
> (otherwise, why are we here?).
> 11.We need clear criteria for reopening issues. The "new information" 
> standard is overly vague and inconsistently applied.
> 12.We need assurances about the process for closing issues, including 
> addressing the problem of having to continually raise and re-raise 
> issues. We need a predictable, rational process for bringing issues to 
> close.
> 13.What is the status of the global considerations effort?
> 14.Who is the new co-chair? It is impossible to express our faith or 
> lack of it in the poll without knowing who will co-lead the group 
> going forward.
> 15.What is the status of FTC participation, and who is speaking for 
> the FTC? Is Ed Felton speaking for FTC? Or Paul Ohm?
> 16.What is the status of the PAG?
> Respectfully submitted on 9/13/2013, on behalf of the DAA, IAB, NAI 
> and DMA,
> Chris Mejia, DAA & IAB
> From: Matthias Schunter - WC3 WG Co-Chair <mts-std@schunter.org 
> <mailto:mts-std@schunter.org>>
> Date: Thursday, September 5, 2013 11:38 PM
> To: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
> Subject: Important Dates (updated, V03)
> Resent-From: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List 
> <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
> Resent-Date: Thursday, September 5, 2013 11:39 PM
> Hi Team,
> I now realized that it is wiser to open the poll after announcing the 
> final plan.
> I thus shifted the opening to Sept 19 and added an "important date" 
> (for me) to publish the plan on Sept 18.
> Regards,
> matthias
> *September 13: Deadline for feedback on the proposed plan *
>     September 18 (new): Revised plan is announced
>     September 18 (updated): Poll opens
> October 02: Issue Freeze: Issues raised after October 02 will be 
> deferred to be addressed after Last Call.
>      October 09: The poll closes; chairs and team assess responses.
Received on Saturday, 14 September 2013 06:34:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:18 UTC