Re: Issue-5 Option C: No Definition

There is no vote count.  We are only assessing substantive objections.

How about we rephrase Option C as "No Definition/Definition Location" and phrase the text as: If you have an objection to including the definition of tracking in the TPE document and/or the Compliance document, please describe your objection, with clear and specific reasoning.

Again, to be clear, *where* we get the objections is not as important as that we get the objections.  They are open fields where you can make whatever case you want about the various options.  I worry that we are continuing to get dragged down in strange, procedural squabbles.  If you want to make a substantive point, make it and it will be considered by the Chairs.  We have not formulated the fields with external optics in mind, and I don't think that should be a consideration.

On Nov 13, 2013, at 3:59 PM, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com> wrote:

> Justin,
> 
> I still think this leaves confusion.  If someone objected to the term being defined in the TPE but supported it being defined in the Compliance doc, then there is no way to express that opinion.  The response box is titled "If you have objection to this option, please describe your objection, with clear and specific reasoning".  My concern is that from a "vote count" perspective  if people type in area 4 then they are objecting to No Definition (i.e. Supporting a definition) which should not be interpreted as supporting a definition in the TPE.    If you are in search of clarity here, 4 should read, "No definition in TPE, remove from TPE's definition's section".
> 
> -Brooks
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the Wunderman Network
> (Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com 
> brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com
> 
> <image[373].png>
> 
> This email – including attachments – may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient,
>  do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender immediately and delete the message.
> 
> From: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
> Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 3:36 PM
> To: "Jack L.Hobaugh Jr" <jack@networkadvertising.org>
> Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Issue-5 Option C: No Definition
> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 3:36 PM
> 
> Jack, Option C says that there should be no definition of tracking in the definitions section (which is in the Compliance document) but also by implication says that there shouldn't be a definition in TPE either (the TPE editors have told the group they were simply going to recreate the definition of tracking in TPE).  However, group members should provide any objections about where the tracking definition should or shouldn't reside in this field.
> 
> I will ask Nick to rephrase the Option be entitled "Document Location" and say:  If you have an objection to including the definition of tracking in either the TPE document or the Compliance document, please describe your objection, with clear and specific reasoning.
> 
> Jack, does this fix any confusion?
> 
> Working group members still have until November 20th to respond to the Call for Objections for ISSUES -5 and -10.
> 
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Jack L. Hobaugh Jr <jack@networkadvertising.org> wrote:
> 
>> Justin, Matthias,
>> 
>> I want to take this opportunity to clear up some potential confusion that may exist regarding Option C for Issue-5 in the call for objections.
>> 
>> Option C: No definition states: “No definition; remove from Definitions section, rest of document unchanged.”
>> 
>> My understanding is that when this option was first submitted it was to remove the definition from the TCS document.  
>> 
>> See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/0369.html
>> 
>> As the option is currently worded, that is not clear as “document” could also refer to the TPE.
>> 
>> I would suggest that “document” be changed to “TCS document” for clarity and that a “Document location” section be added to Issue-5 to be consistent with the Issue-10 call for objections structure.
>> 
>> I think these two changes will remove any remaining confusion.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Jack
>> 
>> Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
>> Network Advertising Initiative | Counsel & Senior Director of Technology 
>> 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
>> P: 202-347-5341 | jack@networkadvertising.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>