Re: TPWG Charter; urge it remain

"On hold" and "dead" look remarkably similar. I am curious, what would the difference be, other than semantics?

I can see advantages to killing DNT outright and admitting failure, or better yet to buckling down and finishing the remaining work. Letting DNT lapse into "on hold" seems the worst whimpering death possible. 

Perhaps it is time for a f2f with the goal of finishing the documents. 

     Aleecia 

> On Jul 15, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the input, Jeff, Mike, and Craig.
> 
> As part of the W3C Process[1], the Advisory Board has asked the W3C Team
> to get Advisory Committee review of charter extensions. That means
> asking the W3C membership overall (not just those participating in the
> group) whether they support renewal. Is this a place they want W3C to
> continue expending attention and resources?
> 
> Before I raise that question with the Advisory Committee, I'd like to
> hear from a few more people, in particular, whether we have testers and
> editors willing to update the specs to make sure what's written matches
> implementations, and to remove from normative status features that have
> not been implemented sufficiently.
> 
> I don't see the alternative to be walking away so much as putting work
> on hold until we have a demonstration that further work will actually be
> useful to the Web's users. Until we see more pressure for Web sites and
> Web applications to adopt DNT -- and respond to users DNT:1 requests --
> it seems hard to "Recommend" that users keep sending DNT signals into
> the ether for them to be ignored.
> 
> Thanks,
> --Wendy
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#CharterReview
> 
>> On 07/15/2016 02:32 PM, Craig Spiezle wrote:
>> The Online Trust Alliance agrees.  To this point we are seeing an update in adoption and if we walk away today, we risk sending the wrong message. 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org] 
>> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 10:51 AM
>> To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
>> Cc: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) <public-tracking@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: TPWG Charter; urge it remain 
>> 
>> CDD urges W3C to keep this group’s status active.  It is critically important, given the changes to the market we are seeing in both N. America and Europe especially, that W3C's Do Not Track initiative is ongoing during this period.  The Charter should be renewed; otherwise privacy and the public lose out.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> Jeff Chester
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Executive Director
>> Center for Digital Democracy
>> Washington, DC. 
>> www. democraticmedia.org
>> jeff@democraticmedia.org
>> 202-494-7100
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 15, 2016, at 12:05 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi TPWG participants,
>>> 
>>> Seeing limited conversation here, and no input from adopters of the 
>>> technology, I lean toward not rechartering the group at this time, 
>>> while continuing to track implementation and adoption.
>>> 
>>> We can keep using the public-tracking mailing list and wikis, under 
>>> the auspices of the Privacy Interest Group (PING, join for broader 
>>> discussion, if you like, at https://www.w3.org/Privacy/).
>>> 
>>> The CR documents we published will of course remain available for 
>>> reference, implementation, and use:
>>> TPE: https://www.w3.org/TR/tracking-dnt/
>>> TCS: https://www.w3.org/TR/tracking-compliance/
>>> 
>>> If interest in DNT picks up, we can reopen the Working Group to 
>>> complete the interop testing and editing necessary to take the specs 
>>> forward to Recommendation.
>>> 
>>> How does that sound?
>>> 
>>> --Wendy
>>> 
>>>> On 07/01/2016 07:39 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> thanks for the positive responses. It is a good point that people who 
>>>> want to implement DNT better get guidance to do so in an interoperable way.
>>>> 
>>>> I would also like to hear the opposite opinions: Are there objections 
>>>> to extending the charter and finalizing the documents?
>>>> Is there a downside to extending the charter, reviewing 
>>>> implementations, and publishing a final recommendation?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> matthias
>>>> Am 01.07.2016 00:10, schrieb Craig Spiezle:
>>>>> I third it.  As noted we are seeing an uptake of sites disclosing if they Honor DNT and a renewed interest among publishers.   Honoring Do Not track is much suddenly become more attractive then Ad blockers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 11:14 AM
>>>>> To: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
>>>>> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org; 'Wendy Seltzer' <wseltzer@w3.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: TPWG Charter
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I second a request to extend the charter. Now that implementers and testers have picked up DNT, it is time to further explore use cases that we may have overlooked.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Rob van Eijk
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mike O'Neill schreef op 2016-06-30 19:57:
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> With the tightening of the requirement for consent, the right to 
>>>>>> object, right to amend/modify/erase driven by the GDPR in Europe 
>>>>>> and the (initially Transatlantic) PrivacyShield, makes it advisable 
>>>>>> that the charter for this group be extended for at least another 
>>>>>> year. The building-blocks in the TPE, for example the Tracking 
>>>>>> Status Resource, support many of these requirements, and can 
>>>>>> clearly be enhanced to support the others, and this WG is the 
>>>>>> obvious place where these can be discussed and hopefully standardised.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The rising popularity of Ad Blockers and other Content Blocking 
>>>>>> applications, which can be destructive in the way they arbitrarily 
>>>>>> inhibit aspects of the web platform, also point to the need for 
>>>>>> protocol elements that can communicate user preferences, and the 
>>>>>> TPE or something similar to it would help with this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The TPE has been implemented on several clients and servers as 
>>>>>> described in the Implementation Report 
>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/TPE_Implementation_Report
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The Tracking Exception API has been supported natively and in user 
>>>>>> agent extensions, and has been supported by thousands of sites, 
>>>>>> including those run by major consumer brand companies, in most 
>>>>>> European countries since 2013. A number of these sites are 
>>>>>> extending their support for the TPE protocol elements in the near future.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I hope the W3C recognises this and extends the group charter for 
>>>>>> another year.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mike O'Neill
>>>>>> Technical Director
>>>>>> Baycloud Systems
>>>>>> Oxford Centre for Innovation
>>>>>> New Road
>>>>>> Oxford
>>>>>> OX1 1BY
>>>>>> Tel. 01865 735619
>>>>>> Fax: 01865 261401
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office) Policy 
>>> Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>>> https://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
> 
> 
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office)
> Policy Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 15 July 2016 19:55:06 UTC