Question to Chairs on Call-for-objection Process

Dear TPWG Chairs,

With respect to Issue-240 on defining the word "context" as it pertains to the definition of "tracking" in the TPE (but also related more broadly to the entire TPE drafting process, procedurally speaking), I'd like to formally request a procedural ordering of issues:

  1.  We should FIRST vote/poll on the fundamental issue of whether the definition of the word "context" should be included (at all) in the TPE…. THEN;
  2.  Following the issuance of a "decision" by the chairs on the 1st poll proposed above (of whether to include a definition of context in the TPE, or not), IF it is determined through that poll that we should have this definition in the TPE document, we THEN move to a call-for-objections poll on the actual definition of the word "context".

My rationale for this request being, folks may give a different response to #2 depending on the outcome of #1. My request here, logically asks that the horse come before the cart, metaphorically speaking.  I hope this makes sense, procedurally?  I also believe this is how we should approach any potential porting of definitions (aka policy) into the TPE.

Finally, I'd like to point out that we have two conflicting "final"/closed decisions:  a) the decision to bifurcate the compliance document from the technology document and put their development on separate paths, and b) the defining of do-not-track (which is a ultimately compliance/policy element) now in the TPE working draft.  I believe this conflict needs to be discussed at an architectural level with the working group (not discussed issue by issue, as we are doing today in what feels like a 'Frankensteining' process) and reconciled accordingly.

Respectfully Submitted for Your Consideration,


Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group | Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB

Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 21:15:34 UTC