Re: tracking-ACTION-461: Detail differences between issue-203 proposals

I've updated the wiki to describe the essential differences in Roy's proposal 4 from the editor's draft text. (My proposal 1 also describes differences from existing text, they're just quite small.)

Summary at top, but below the horizonal rule, I note the changes in italics and quote the relevant new text:
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Tracking_Third_Party_Compliance#Proposal_4:_first-party_permitted_use

I'll try again to give a high-level summary, but this isn't as detailed.

In Proposal 4, we would:
* prohibit engaging in tracking for N (or T except under certain circumstances) with a list of prohibitions against collection, retention, use outside of the current context
* permitted uses would be a top-level section applying to tracking for both first and third party interactions
* define a first party permitted use

Whereas in Proposal 1/editor's draft, we would (or already say):
* compliance with a DNT:1 signal as a first party to a given user action is section 3.2 (permissive)
* compliance with DNT:1 as a third party is general prohibition against collection, retention, use of tracking data, except for permitted uses and permanent deidentification

As before, I don't think "first party" is a use or the same kind of thing as our other permitted uses. I think the Proposal 1 rules for third party compliance with a DNT:1 signal are clearer by providing prohibitions and allowances rather than prohibiting tracking and relying on an understanding of downstream partners. I believe both use a definition of "tracking data".

I'm still hoping to find the use cases that Roy or others don't think are covered by editor's draft (or the Proposal 1 change) so that I can provide an improvement that would work for all of us.

Hope this helps,
Nick