- From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 12:10:07 +0000
- To: Nick Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
- Cc: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>, Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com>, public-tracking@w3.org
Last paragraph: s/Issue-262/Issue-268/ Rob van Eijk schreef op 2015-12-17 12:08: > Nick: > > I am fine with you proposal and concur with Mike on Issue-272, i.e. to > add a non-normative note to the end of 2.5 Party saying: > > "When data pertaining to a user’s actions is collected as a result of > one or more network interactions, a party acts in one of roles defined > below, i.e. as a first party or as a third party to a given user > action. These terms are not meant to denote the business practices of > entities as a whole, but rather to describe a party’s role in a > particular network interaction." > > On the remaining issues (268-272) - Issue-268 particularly - I would > like to repeat that there remains a gap between DNT and the current > European legal regime(s). The same goes for compliance under the GDPR. > The burden to close the gap rests on the implementers. > > The proposed resolutions work partially because they do not close the > gap for implementers to become compliant with the legal requirements > in the EU. However, I think it is important to start implementing and > I would therefore not want to block the process of getting the > compliance document to the next maturity level. The important thing > here is that DNT has a every chance in the EU to be a successful tool > to become legally compliant. There is even an implicit reference to > DNT building blocks in Article 19 (2b) of the GDPR which - IMHO - may > be read in conjunction with Recital 66 of the revised ePrivacy > Directive 2009/136/EC. > > "At the latest at the time of the first communication with the data > subject, the right referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be > explicitly brought to the attention of the data subject and shall be > presented clearly and separately from any other information. [Article > 19 (2b), GDPR]" > > Simply put, the basic building blocks are in the TPE, and if > implementers need more building blocks in the standard we can work on > those. The compliance document with a reference to global > considerations should remind them about the legal requirements > depending on which legal framework applies. > > On Issue-262, I propose to take the same route as you have handled the > input from the OPC, which is currently reflected in the wiki. The > Working Party has given guidance on, e.g., legal requirements in the > EU for cookies, consent, de-identification/anonymisation techniques in > various opinions, and has pointed out areas of improvement and areas > of concern in its letters to the W3C. > > Regards, > Rob > > > Nick Doty schreef op 2015-12-08 03:14: >> Thanks for volunteering, Mike. Rob, would you and your colleagues also >> be willing to contribute to this, given that it was a comment from >> Article 29 regarding different regulatory requirements? >> >> I can set up an ad hoc WebEx call for any interested parties. Or we >> can iterate in email. An initial question for me is the URL: is this >> best as a continuation of the Global Considerations document, which >> the group could publish as a non-normative note? Or a wiki page? >> >> Thanks, >> Nick >> >>> On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:15 AM, Mike O'Neill >>> <michael.oneill@baycloud.com> wrote: >>> >>> I can help out with the new Global Considerations document or wiki >>> page. Given the time should we have a webex call to discuss it? Let >>> me know off list and I will start a doodle. >>> >>> FROM: Carl Cargill [mailto:cargill@adobe.com] >>> SENT: 26 November 2015 01:31 >>> TO: public-tracking@w3.org >>> CC: Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com> >>> SUBJECT: TPWG Compliance Last Call next steps and schedule >>> >>> On issue-268, the comment regarding regulatory compliance, the >>> proposed language includes linking to another document, either the >>> Global Considerations document or a wiki page. We would need members >>> of the Working Group to commit to contributing such a document in >>> order to include that link, otherwise the Group likely should not >>> make a change to the specification. Please note such commitments no >>> later than next Wednesday, December 2nd.
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2015 12:10:38 UTC