RE: Issues for Monday Call

I'm on my honeymoon and will not be able to participate in the next 2 calls - regrets.
On transparency, the current standard provides all of the necessary elements to provide users (data subjects) links to required disclosures.
And in no case do I support any move to create machine readable elements in this standard outside of the very few we've included thus far.  There is nothing in the GDPR or pER that compels this and it will create unneeded complexity for publishers and browsers.
- Shane
Sent from mobile phone so please excuse brevity and typos.  
 
  On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Mike O'Neill<michael.oneill@baycloud.com> wrote:   European Data Protection law has definite requirements for the information made available to users. In my opinion the TSR is the best place for these elements because a) they are not only required when consent is given, or when it is the legal basis for processing, and b) the TSR is more accessible to privacy researchers, regulators and browser extensions (if it was only available to the API we would need to add another API to report them).

They need not be mandatory in the TPE (though the simple string name property for controllers should be in my opinion), so why not put them in as a non-normative Addendum describing them as examples of TSR extensibility.

I have assembled my suggestions in a document (in the repo drafts folder):

https://w3c.github.io/dnt/drafts/Transparency.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org]
> Sent: 30 March 2017 08:11
> To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) <public-
> tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: Issues for Monday Call
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> based on the discussion last week. Below I codified an alternative
> approach to resolving the TSR issues (based on the emails on the list
> and input from last week).
> 
> Our list of issues is at:
>  https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues/23
> Note that issues that are not resolved by end of April will be
> auto-pushed out to potential future releases.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> matthias
> 
> -----
> DISCUSSIONS FOR MONDAY
> 
> 1. Issue triage: Are there issues that are high priority and must be
> resolved in April? If not, we can process without change.
> 
> 2. What additional fields are desired for simplifying compliance in the EU?
> 
> Note: So far I have not seen any submitted proposals for an additional
> concrete field on the list. If I receive none, IMHO we can close this
> discussion on monday.
> 
> 2. Best way to communicate "consent context".
> Our current approach was that the TSR serves two roles:
>     A. Discovery (before visiting site) of essential tracking
>         information
>     B. Sufficient context to give clear meaning to
>         user-granted exception. This role triggered that we
>         plan to require TSR if the exception API is used.
>         It also fuels our discussion "what extra fields are
>         needed"
> Roy suggested that TSR may be the best place for (B). Let us see whether
> we find a better place for the consent-context information.
> One suggestion was that it should be part of the API call.
> 
> 3. Asyncronous API / Update Events (Continued)
> https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues/13
> 
> 4. Anything else we want to discuss