TPE Objection - Call for consensus on Last Call

I respectfully object to the W3C DNT TPE document moving to last call.
 
The TPWG process has been arbitrary, unfair and has lacked transparency. The
TPWG has been dominated by large companies from day 1 until present ­ with
back room agreements and secret funding arrangements. As a result, we have a
standard that favors certain marketplace participants over others ­ and
ultimately picks marketplace winners.
 
At almost every turn, the valid concerns of those within the WG tasked with
actual implementation of the specification have been ignored and our rights
trampled upon all in the name of a standard that by most accounts will
ultimately create nothing more than the appearance of privacy in the digital
age and will significantly alter the competitive landscape. Personally, I
find it odd that the WG participants who are guardians of fair and open
competition have signed off on this document and would invite them to defend
their decisions publicly.
 
While I have little confidence that my concerns will be heard by the W3C, I
am loathe to have the W3C or any outside party interpret my silence as
acquiescing to the publication of this document.
 
A few specific thoughts and concerns below.
 
 
·      First, it is worth noting that a significant majority of the WG
indicated their preference to stop work altogether via a formal poll of the
group in October of 2013; the W3C chose to continue work against the will of
the WG.

 

·      The way the TPE is currently crafted, no company can confidently
respond with a TSV because the definition of tracking remains so ambiguous.
The terms "data regarding a particular user's activity," "multiple distinct
contexts," "resources", and "jointly controlled by a set of parties" are
ambiguous and leave significant room for interpretation. I would be
reluctant to advise any company to return anything but a D or a T, to avoid
a material misrepresentation. That makes parts of the spec un-implementable,
and it's also a poor outcome for users.

 
·      The chairs only provided written rationale for their decision
regarding the all important definition of ³context² on April 22, 2014 ­ the
day before the TPE was slated to move to Last Call.  And even then the
chairs indicated that there was no room for group discussion regarding their
written decision on context. (See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2014Apr/0097.html). This
is of particular concern given that the definition that the chairs picked
after consultation with several large WG participants opens the door for
several of those companies to indicate that they are NOT tracking under the
TPE.

 

·      The inability for parties to reliably ascertain that any given DNT
signal reflects a choice made by a user, making it impossible to reliably
honor the core intent of the specification.

 

This current specification is mostly the brainchild of several large
marketplace participants who are using DNT as a way to carve up the
marketplace in ways that benefit their respective models. In essence, these
companies have carefully crafted a standard that mostly doesn¹t apply to
them. I would strongly encourage interested parties to look under the hood
to see what¹s really going on in this process. And an any event,
respectfully object to this document¹s publication.
 
Respectfully,
 
Alan Chapell