Re: ISSUE-153 Consensus

I think I'm confused.  The alternative is the existing text.  I don't know who originally wrote it.  Probably Roy.  The Call for Objection is on whether to add the sentence suggested by Brad and David.  I think that at least Sid and Walter object to it for the reasons they've previously argued on the mailing list and on the calls.  However, if they have been since convinced otherwise and no one objects to the new sentence by tomorrow, the Chairs will gladly declare the issue closed.

On Jan 28, 2014, at 5:04 PM, "Jack L. Hobaugh Jr" <jack@networkadvertising.org> wrote:

> Hi Justin,
> 
> Thank you for the clarification.
> 
> If there is a valid second proposal, then I respectfully request that it be presented as such and adequately articulated along with the authors/proponents identified.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jack,
>> 
>> The alternative proposal was the existing text.  It was understanding from the January 15th call [1] that at least Sid Stamm and Walter van Holst preferred the existing text, and did not want to make the quasi-legal assertion that user agents bear joint responsibility for the behavior of add-ons.  Moreover, there did not appear to be overwhelming support for the new language --- as far as I can tell, only David, Shane, and Brad argued for it.  Moreover, Brad did not object to proceed for a Call for Objections after the call. [2]
>> 
>> Sid, Walter, Brad, others, if I am mistaken, please correct me.
>> 
>> The Call for Objections closes tomorrow.  If they (or others) have no objection to the new language, then we will proceed with the additional sentence.  Otherwise, we will have to evaluate the relative strength of the objections.  If we wanted to just announce closure of the issue at this point, we would have to wait two additional weeks anyway to see if there were objections to closing by agreement.  We have managed to close some issues without a CfO in recent weeks, and I hope we can do more of that!  But given that we've already established a firm deadline for obtaining feedback on this issue, I'm reluctant to reopen the procedure.
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/01/15-dnt-minutes
>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2014Jan/0065.html
>> 
>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jack L. Hobaugh Jr <jack@networkadvertising.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/decision-policy.html.)
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> (See http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_limitations_for_add-ons.)
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>