W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Fwd: Monday Call

From: Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:51:25 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1174619661.7166518.1493401885274@mail.yahoo.com>
Matthias and Rob,
After discussing the matter more with others in industry and several browser vendors I would offer the following suggested steps to come to a common meeting point:
-  Some publishers would actually like the browser to block if a 3rd party is not in their list (but not many) but there is concern that if the list is empty that a publisher's user granted site-wide exception will not be honored.  To meet the middle ground I'd recommend that we add a signal from the publisher in their TSR that asks the browser to take a firm position (block) parties not found in their "other party" list (other-party-block: Y/N).  We would want to further this position by actively stating that if the other party list is empty the user agent should honor the publisher's user granted site-wide exception (they are taking full legal responsibility for having obtained an informed, specific, freely given, and unambiguous consent).
- Browser vendors do not want to be placed in the position of obtaining consent on behalf of a publisher (high risk - no reward) but publishers that are asking for blocking would like to be notified of what domains were blocked on each page to (a) track down those relationships and/or (b) add those parties to their user consent process.  I hopeful we can look at a queryable resource post page load that the browser can access via JS to pass this information back to their servers for further handling.
Hopefully you'll find these suggestions fair and agreeable such that we can work on joint text towards a unified proposal.  Please let me know your thoughts.
I'm still hoping to drag more of the industry and several browser vendors back to the conversation but as this process is coming to a close they aren't seeing much value.  :-(   - Shane
Shane Wiley
VP, Privacy Policy

      From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
 To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> 
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
 Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 2:39 PM
 Subject: Fwd: Monday Call
Hi Shane / Rob,

thanks a lot for documenting your concerns on the mailing list.

Rob just sent out his text proposal. I understand that Yahoo's current
preference is "no such field should be included". As a consequence, we
plan to issue a CfO.

If either of you propose text that has the potential for everyone to
"live with it", I could could invest some more time to discuss the
proposal. Otherwise, I will issue a CfO before our call on Monday.

The question for the CfO will be:
 "To what extent and in what form should TPE allow a site to
 publish the third party resources that may be used in a
 machine readable form?"

The first phase will be to ask for alternative text proposals, the
second phase is a short discussion to explore compromises, the final
phase is collecting objections (see our web-page for the details).


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Monday Call
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:42:30 +0000
Resent-From: public-tracking@w3.org
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:41:54 -0700
From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) <public-tracking@w3.org>

Hi Folks,

I have not received any objections to having a call on monday. I suggest
to have our next call on May 01 at 9am Pacific (normal slot).

Main Goal is to ensure that we have text for all issues for this release.

I cleaned the list of issues that we plan to include in this release:
(this are the issues that we started and that in a recent discussion we
declared high priority).

Based on the discussion on the mailing list, I do not see any need to
discuss whether we need the other-parties fileld in the TSR:
- Some folks believe that it is an essential requirement for EU
"specific consent"
- Others believe that it must not be included and basically veto its

I suggest that we go to a Call for Objections to structure this discussion.
If (and only if)  I see convergence onto an "i can live with this"
then we may spend some time discussing. Otherwise, it is CfO time...



1. Issue 13: https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues/13

2. Issue 09: https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues/9

3. Planning: What else is needed to get sufficient text as input.

Received on Friday, 28 April 2017 17:52:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:34 UTC