ISSUE-153 Consensus

Dear W3C TPWG Co-Chairs:

I would like to respectfully suggest that under the posted W3C TPWG procedures, consensus regarding ISSUE-153 has already been obtained and that a call for objections is not necessary because (1) a call for objections requires “two or more competing proposals” and (2) only one supported proposal remains on the wiki.

First, the W3C TPWG procedures require “two or more competing proposals" for a call for objections.
4. Call for objections
If two or more competing proposals exist for an issue and the chairs conclude that further discussion on the proposals will not change existing positions, the chairs may conduct an electronic straw poll to call for objections to each of the presented proposals. Participants should express their objections to each proposal with clear and specific reasoning.
(found at

Second, at one time there may have been competing proposals, but as it stands now there appears to be only one proposal (Singer/Kulick) that has been officially submitted.

I do not see any evidence on the wiki of a second supported proposal.

It appears that no member of the W3C TPWG has submitted a counter-proposal against the single proposal submitted by David Singer and Brad Kulick.

And because a call for objections requires “two or more competing proposals,” it would appear that we are now at consensus and the call for objections is not required for a determination of consensus.

Best regards,


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 |

Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 21:09:46 UTC