Way forward for TPWG...

Dear re-vived WG Participants,


thanks a lot for the lively discussion. Since we are 95% done, IMHO if
in doubt, I would rather be safe and push our recommendations over the
finish line.
Another point is that so far on the list, I only heard participants to
express a desire to finish what we started.

The BIG concern I have is whether we have anough manpower to do the
final edits.
We need sufficient contributors (and some time from our editors) to do
these final touches.

Questions (to me personally or to the public list)::
- Feel free to express your willingness to help write, decide, edit our
documents   
- Does anybody objects to going forward and has substantiated concerns
why we should not?
- I would like to see browser implementation and web-site support. Any
browsers willing continue to support the DNT signals and/or the
user-granted exceptions?

Any other feedback is welcome, too. I suggest that we also set up a call
to discuss the inputs.

Suggested time:
 Wednesday July 27, 9-10am pacific (noon-1pm eastern, 6pm-7pm Germany)


Regards,
matthias




Am 18.07.2016 09:07, schrieb Walter van Holst:
> On 2016-07-18 00:57, Lee Tien wrote:
>> EFF has been unengaged in the WG for a few years now, because we
>> didn’t think there was enough interest in DNT by all stakeholders, so
>> we developed our own tool (Privacy Badger) that is consistent with our
>> principles.
>
> Like EFF, I haven't been engaged much with the WG in the last two
> years. But like Rob, I think wrapping it up now is very likely to turn
> out as unfortunately timed. With the GDPR entering into force within
> two years (and it contains a provision specifically meant for DNT) and
> the upcoming review of the e-Privacy Directive, this WG may very well
> turn out to be more relevant than its participants have thought
> lately. Even without overwhelming adoption of the DNT mechanism so
> far, the uptake of ad blockers show that the days of an unfettered
> predatory advertising ecosystem come to an end. DNT may very well be a
> piece in solving the puzzle of how to deal with consent instead of
> running roughshod over end-users interests.
>
>> I also do not understand the present status of ad-blocking under EU
>> law (I know there was a recent decision but don’t know what it said).
>
> There has been no decision under EU law. There have been decisions
> under German law. And for the most part those decisions say that
> ad-blocking is fine. Some cases revolve around the rather dodgy
> business model of Eyeo. Which interestingly enough is partnering for
> Flattr to introduce microtransactions as an alternative to ads.
>
>> But our position is that these two points—that the EU is in a
>> transition, and that ad-blocking is increasing industry interest in
>> DNT—if valid, could well justify continued work by the WG.  Curious
>> what others think.
>
> It corresponds to my line of thinking.
>
> Regards,
>
>  Walter
>

Received on Monday, 18 July 2016 08:14:04 UTC