Re: new charter

Yes, let’s be neutral.  We’re offering TCS, and others can offer other specifications (or regulations) that can be linked to.

p.s. I mistakenly leaked my personal email onto this thread, but I don’t need these emails there.  The list is good enough.


> On Oct 25, 2016, at 3:13 , Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> 
> Other edits to come post our WG call but I would immediately suggest changing:
> 
> "The working group does not plan to prescribe a specific approach/policy for web-sites to respect a user’s preference, but will contrast the Tracking Compliance and Scope (TCS) document with at least one other compliance approach that is consistent with the TPE and publish a report on this in a non-normative WG Note. The TCS will be put into maintenance mode – i.e. we will continue to collect feedback and implementation experiences on the Tracking Compliance Specification that is currently in Candidate Recommendation state, but be prepared, if it is adopted by one or more sites, to progress it to a final Recommendation."
> 
> to
>  
> "The working group does not plan to prescribe a specific approach/policy for web-sites to respect a user’s preference. The TCS will be put into maintenance mode – i.e. we will continue to collect feedback and implementation experiences on the Tracking Compliance Specification that is currently in Candidate Recommendation state, but be prepared, if it is adopted by one or more sites, to progress it to a final Recommendation."
> 
> Attempting to "contrast" the EFF approach to the TCS approach is likely to be highly disagreement prone with little value back to the working group.  Adding links to both the TCS draft and the EFF policy as examples of possible approaches should cover the need and not introduce too much controversy into the group.  Fair?
> 
> - Shane
> 
> Shane Wiley
> VP, Privacy Policy
> Yahoo
> 
> 
> From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
> To: public-tracking@w3.org; 'Matthias Schunter' <mts-std@schunter.org> 
> Cc: 'Jeff Jaffe' <jeff@w3.org>; 'David Singer' <singer@mac.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 2:32 PM
> Subject: new charter
> 
> Hi Matthias,
>  
> Some suggested changes, simplifying and tidying up the Scope section, adding Jeff’s non-normative WG Note idea and David’s comment about being prepared to take TCS to final Rec.
>  
> Scope
>  
> The Working Group will finalise the Recommendation-track specification for a simple machine-readable preference expression mechanism ("Do Not Track”) which enables users to selectively opt-in or opt-out of web tracking.
> This mechanism is documented in our Candidate Recommendation document “Tracking Preference Expression (TPE)” http://www.w3.org/Submission/web-tracking-protection/ and defines mechanisms for user agents to express a preference not to be tracked, elements that allow web-sites to explain their tracking behaviour to users, and an API to monitor the current DNT status and let users give or revoke their consent for tracking to specific sites.
> The main focus of the extended implementation phase (until Summer 2017) is to demonstrate the viability of the TPE to satisfy the requirements of new EU privacy and data protection regulations.
> The working group does not plan to prescribe a specific approach/policy for web-sites to respect a user’s preference, but will contrast the Tracking Compliance and Scope (TCS) document with at least one other compliance approach that is consistent with the TPE and publish a report on this in a non-normative WG Note. The TCS will be put into maintenance mode – i.e. we will continue to collect feedback and implementation experiences on the Tracking Compliance Specification that is currently in Candidate Recommendation state, but be prepared, if it is adopted by one or more sites, to progress it to a final Recommendation.
>  
> Success Criteria / Goals { minor edits & add WG note }
>  
> • Production of stable Recommendation-track specification for the Tracking Preference Expression (TPE) 
> • The revised TPE will be aligned with emerging EU privacy regulations and other proposed compliance documents.
> • Production of a non-normative WG note describing and contrasting the TCS and at least 1 other known compliance approach that uses the TPE building blocks. 
> • Stretch Goal: We can demonstrate how that TPE can simplify privacy compliance in the EU.
> • Stretch Goal: Endorsement by some EU regulators.
>  
> Deliverables { add WG Note }
>  
> A WG non-normative Note describing and contrasting 2 or more compliance approaches.
>  
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org] 
> Sent: 24 October 2016 09:37
> To: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Revised Charter Proposal - Feedback by Oct 26
>  
> Hi Folks,
>  
> thanks a lot for the lively discussion!
>  
> The intended goal stated in the charter is that the TPE should define
> "not tracking" (i.e. the objective we want to achieve) and a minimal set
> of definitions.
> There can be MANY ways to achieve this goal that can then be referenced
> sing the link to a compliance document..
>  
> If you require specific changes to the charter, I would need them ASAP.
>  
> Regards,
> matthias

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2016 06:54:24 UTC