Re: DAA departing & moving forward

Thanks, Jack.

Jeff

On 9/17/2013 11:40 AM, Jack L. Hobaugh Jr wrote:
> TPWG:
>
> NAI will also continue to participate in the TPWG.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jack
>
> *Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
> *Network Advertising Initiative| Counsel & Senior Director of Technology
> 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
> P: 202-347-5341| jack@networkadvertising.org 
> <mailto:jack@networkadvertising.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 17, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org 
> <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Mike; Rachel.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On 9/17/2013 10:57 AM, Rachel Thomas wrote:
>>> Ninja,
>>>
>>> DMA will continue to participate in the TPWG as well.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Rachel
>>>
>>> Rachel Nyswander Thomas
>>> Executive Director, Data-Driven Marketing Institute (DDMI)
>>> Vice President, Government Affairs
>>> Direct Marketing Association
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Mike Zaneis [mike@iab.net <mailto:mike@iab.net>]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:53 AM
>>> To: Ninja Marnau; Peter Swire
>>> Cc: Louis Mastria; public-tracking@w3.org 
>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org 
>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)
>>> Subject: RE: DAA departing & moving forward
>>>
>>> Ninja,
>>>
>>> The IAB will continue to be engaged in the W3C process.
>>>
>>> Mike Zaneis
>>> SVP & General Counsel
>>> Interactive Advertising Bureau
>>> (202) 253-1466
>>>
>>> Follow me on Twitter @mikezaneis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ninja Marnau [mailto:nmarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de 
>>> <http://datenschutzzentrum.de>]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:32 AM
>>> To: Peter Swire
>>> Cc: Lou Mastria; public-tracking@w3.org 
>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org 
>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)
>>> Subject: Re: DAA departing & moving forward
>>>
>>> Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Peter.
>>>
>>> I would like to ask what this departing means with regard to the 
>>> DMA, IAB and the IAB members that participate in the WG. Is the 
>>> DAA's decision independent from the DMA and IAB? What about Chris 
>>> Meja's email with feedback for the plan forward from the IAB, DAA, 
>>> DMA and NAI?
>>>
>>> Ninja
>>>
>>> Am 17.09.2013 15:16, schrieb Peter Swire:
>>>>
>>>> To the Working Group:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I note with sadness but not surprise the decision today by the Digital
>>>> Advertising Alliance to withdraw from the Tracking Protection Working
>>>> Group of the World Wide Web Consortium.  In announcing their
>>>> departure, they chose my actions as the most convenient excuse for
>>>> leaving the
>>>> process: "Unfortunately, these efforts were rejected out of hand by
>>>> TPWG co-chair Peter Swire, who jettisoned the long-accepted W3C
>>>> procedure in order to anoint his own way forward."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I share the frustration in the DAA message with the inability of the
>>>> Working Group to achieve better results.  I believe a fair review of
>>>> the history, however, shows that the views of the DAA and its members
>>>> were valued and included in months of hard work together in the Group:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (1) I met individually with the leadership of each DAAmember during
>>>> the "listening tour" in late 2012, after I was named co-chair.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (2) A major part of the agenda at the February Face-to-Face, in
>>>> Cambridge, was based on the DAA proposal concerning ways to limit
>>>> access to a user's lifetime browsing history.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (3) DAA proposals and language were discussed in detail during weekly
>>>> teleconferences for the next several months.  Indeed, a repeated theme
>>>> on the list during this period was the concern from consumer advocates
>>>> that a disproportionateamount of time of the Group was being spent on
>>>> DAA proposals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (4) In the lead-up to the May Face-to-Face in California, there were
>>>> intensive negotiations on what became known as the Draft Framework,
>>>> which became the agenda for our three-day meeting.  The DAA was deeply
>>>> enough involved in these negotiations that its General Counsel, Stu
>>>> Ingis, presented the Draft Framework to the Group in one of its calls.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (5) Coming out of the May meeting, the full group, including the DAA,
>>>> issued a consensus document that enough progress had been made that we
>>>> should continue to work toward the long-agreed Last Call deadline of
>>>> the end of July.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (6) As an effort to have one clear text that would be the focus of the
>>>> Group's efforts, we then had the summer process to create proposed
>>>> language and then comments on a base text.  Among the change
>>>> proposals, by far the greatest amount of time on the Group calls was
>>>> devoted to the text proposed by the DAA and those associated with it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (7) Both co-chairs, supported by W3C staff, then issued approximately
>>>> 40 single-spaced pages of decision documents.  These documents
>>>> contained a massive number of footnotes and citations to the comments
>>>> submitted by Working Group members.  Based on the record developed by
>>>> the full Group, these documents explained reasons why the June Draft
>>>> would remain the base text rather than the proposal submitted by the
>>>> DAA and those associated with it.  In brief, the criteria for a
>>>> standard that we discussed in Cambridge, based on the overall record,
>>>> would not be met by the proposal submitted by the DAA and others.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Based on this history, the DAA views were simply not rejected "out 
>>>> of hand."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My own view is that the Working Group does not have a path to
>>>> consensus that includes large blocs of stakeholders with views as
>>>> divergent as the DAA, on the one hand, and those seeking stricter
>>>> privacy rules, on the other.  I devoted my time as co-chair to trying
>>>> to find creative ways to achieve consumer choice and privacy while
>>>> also enabling a thriving commercial Internet.  I no longer see any
>>>> workable path to a standard that will gain active support from both 
>>>> wings of the Working Group.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When participants don't get the outcome they want on substance, they
>>>> often blame the procedure.  As an imperfect human being, and one
>>>> working within the W3C processes for the first time, I am sure that I
>>>> could have done better at various points on procedure.  The actual
>>>> procedure that led to the July decision came directly from my close
>>>> discussions with W3C staff, and used the mechanism for resolving a
>>>> disputed issue that the Working Group established and used before I 
>>>> became co-chair.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I intensely share the frustration that all the hard work by members of
>>>> the Working Group has not created a consensus path forward.  I believe
>>>> there is consensus in the Working Group that members have worked very
>>>> hard, and I worked very hard, to find apath forward.  I put almost all
>>>> of my other professional work on hold, at financial cost to myself, to
>>>> try to find a solution on Do Not Track.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Going forward, there are cogent reasons for stakeholders to continue
>>>> to work, inside and outside of W3C, to develop standards and good
>>>> practices for commercial privacy on the Internet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We knew coming in that this was a hard problem.  It remains a hard
>>>> problem. The procedures at W3C this summer are not the reason that it
>>>> became hard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With best wishes to all of you,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> P.S.  I expect to be generally off-line today and much of this week.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prof. Peter P. Swire
>>>> Nancy J. and Lawrence P. Huang Professor Law and Ethics Program
>>>> Scheller College of Business Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>
>>>> 240.994.4142
>>>> www.peterswire.net <http://www.peterswire.net>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Lou Mastria <lou@aboutads.info <mailto:lou@aboutads.info>>
>>>> Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 5:17 AM
>>>> To: Jaffe Jeff <jeff@w3.org <mailto:jeff@w3.org>>,
>>>> "public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
>>>> (public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)"
>>>> <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
>>>> Subject: DAA departing & moving forward
>>>> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
>>>> Resent-Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 5:17 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Mr. Jaffe:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After serious consideration, the leadership of the Digital Advertising
>>>> Alliance (DAA) has agreed that the DAA will withdraw from future
>>>> participation in the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Tracking
>>>> Protection Working Group (TPWG).  After more than two years of
>>>> good-faith effort and having contributed significant resources, the
>>>> DAA no longer believes that the TPWG is capable of fostering the
>>>> development of a workable "do not track" ("dnt") solution. As we
>>>> depart W3C and TPWG, DAA will focus its resources on convening its own
>>>> forum to evaluate how browser-based signals can be used 
>>>> meaningfully to address consumer privacy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> During more than two years since the W3C began its attempt at a dnt
>>>> standard, the DAA has delivered real tools to millions of consumers.
>>>> It has grown participation; enhanced transparency with more than a
>>>> trillion ad impressions per month delivered with the DAA's Icon making
>>>> notice and choice information available within one-click of the ad;
>>>> educated millions of consumers and provided browser-based 
>>>> persistent plug ins.
>>>> <http://www.aboutads.info/PMC>  The DAA has also succeeded in applying
>>>> its principles to all of the participants in the digital ecosystem.
>>>> Furthermore, we have expanded these consumer safeguards into 30
>>>> countries and clarified how the DAA's Principles apply in the mobile
>>>> Web and app environments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Going forward, the DAA intends to focus its time and efforts on
>>>> growing this already-successful consumer choice program in "desktop,"
>>>> mobile and in-app environments. The DAA is confident that such efforts
>>>> will yield greater advances in consumer privacy and industry
>>>> self-regulation than would its continued participation at the W3C.
>>>>
>>>> Despite extension after extension of its charter year after year by
>>>> the W3C, the TPWG has yet to reach agreement on the most elementary
>>>> and material issues facing the group.  These open items include
>>>> fundamental issues and key definitions that have been discussed by
>>>> this group since its inception without reaching consensus, including:
>>>>
>>>> *         Defining a harm or problem it seeks to prevent.
>>>>
>>>> *         Defining the term "tracking".
>>>>
>>>> *         Identifying limitations on the use of unique identifiers.
>>>>
>>>> *         Determining the effect of user choice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Concerned about the TPWG's inability to resolve such basic issues, the
>>>> DAA wrote a letter to you on October 2, 2012
>>>> <http://www.aboutads.info/blog/press-release-daa-issues-open-letter-w3
>>>> c-actions-working-group-threaten-ad-supported-internet>,
>>>> expressing its strong concern with the W3C's foray into setting public
>>>> policy standards.  In particular, the letter noted that the W3C "has
>>>> been designed to build consensus around complex technology issues, not
>>>> complex public policy matters." In response, despite the turmoil
>>>> evident at that time, you personally assured us that appropriate
>>>> procedures and policies would be applied to the process and the W3C's
>>>> retention of Professor Swire would settle and bring legitimacy to 
>>>> the process.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the ensuing eight months that led up to the July 2013 deadline
>>>> imposed on the TPWG, the DAA worked in good faith with other
>>>> stakeholders, supporting proposals consistent with recommendations
>>>> from the U.S. Administration and the former chairman of the Federal
>>>> Trade Commission. Unfortunately, these efforts were rejected out of
>>>> hand by TPWG co-chair Peter Swire, who jettisoned the long-accepted
>>>> W3C procedure in order to anoint his own path forward.  As others in
>>>> the working group have substantiated, as a result of Swire's actions
>>>> there is no longer a legitimate TPWG procedure.  Jonathan Mayer,
>>>> commenting on the working process
>>>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0601.html
>>>>> , stated, "We do not have clear rules of decision.  And even if we
>>>> were to have procedural commitments, they could be unilaterally cast
>>>> aside at any time. This is not process: this is the absence of
>>>> process." Roy T.
>>>> Fielding, Senior Principal Scientist at Adobe, highlighted the
>>>> dictatorial approach taken by chairs
>>>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0464.html
>>>>> who have eschewed participant input and subrogated participants'
>>>> right to vote on issues.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In recent weeks, you have indicated to TPWG participants that you have
>>>> no intent to revisit acts or processes (or the lack thereof) that
>>>> occurred leading up to July 2013, and instead plan to move forward.
>>>> However, it is not possible to move forward without an accounting for
>>>> the previous flagrant disregard for procedure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Today, parties on all sides agree that the TPWG is not a sensible use
>>>> of W3C resources and that the process will not lead to a workable 
>>>> result.
>>>> For example, Jonathan Mayer, in his recent letter of resignation from
>>>> the TPWG, stated
>>>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0601.html>:
>>>> "Given the lack of a viable path to consensus, I can no longer justify
>>>> the substantial time, travel, and effort associated with continuing in
>>>> the Working Group." John Simpson, the director of the Consumer
>>>> Watchdog's privacy project, commented on the news of the departure of
>>>> TPWG co-chairman Professor Swire
>>>> <http://www.law360.com/privacy/articles/468512?nl_pk=0c277e2d-1bd7-44e8-80c2-e6cfa8deb42a&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=privacy>:
>>>> "Peter Swire gave it a good shot, but I don't think that he or anybody
>>>> can get this group to a general consensus." These participants and
>>>> others who previously supported the TPWG now conclude that the process
>>>> has devolved into an exercise in frustration on all sides without any
>>>> meaningful increase in consumer choice or transparency.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The DAA agrees with these parties on this matter. Therefore, rather
>>>> than continue to work in a forum that has failed, we intend to commit
>>>> our resources and time in participating in efforts that can achieve
>>>> results while enhancing the consumer digital experience. The DAA will
>>>> immediately convene a process to evaluate how browser-based signals
>>>> can be used to meaningfully address consumer privacy. The DAA looks
>>>> forward to working with browsers, consumer groups, advertisers,
>>>> marketers, agencies, and technologists. This DAA-led process will be a
>>>> more practical use of our resources than to continue to participate 
>>>> at the W3C.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With the departure of the latest TPWG co-chair as well as a key staff
>>>> member, and no definitive process to move forward, the DAA recommends
>>>> that that the W3C should not attempt to resurrect a process that has
>>>> clearly reached the end of its useful life.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The DAA will continue to move forward in its own area of expertise,
>>>> advancing consumer control, transparency, and other critical practices
>>>> through its own program.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Lou Mastria
>>>> P:+1 347 770 0322
>>>> E: Lou@AboutAds.info <mailto:Lou@AboutAds.info>
>>>> Twitter: @lmastria / @daausa
>>>>
>>>> Did you know that DAA released new mobile guidance?
>>>>
>>>> Get the PDF here: http://bit.ly/DAAMobile
>>> --
>>>
>>> Ninja Marnau
>>> mail: NMarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de 
>>> <mailto:NMarnau@datenschutzzentrum.de> - 
>>> http://www.datenschutzzentrum.de
>>> Telefon: +49 431/988-1285, Fax +49 431/988-1223 Unabhaengiges 
>>> Landeszentrum fuer Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein Independent Centre 
>>> for Privacy Protection Schleswig-Holstein
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>