Re: tracking-ISSUE-240 (Context): Do we need to define context? [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]

Chris, thank you for this new proposal. I will list it in the wiki. It 
would be great if you (or Susan and Rob) could provide a short rationale.
Ninja

Am 22.01.14 15:40, schrieb Chris Pedigo:
> Rob Sherman, Susan Israel and I developed the following definition of 
> context.  I'm about to board a flight so I will miss today's call. But 
> happy to discuss over email.
>
> "A context is the collection of network resources that are operated or 
> co-operated by a party."
>
> This refers back to the working group's definition of "party":
>
>     A party is a natural person, a legal entity, or a set of legal
>     entities that share common owner(s), common controller(s), and a
>     group identity that is easily discoverable by a user. Common
>     branding or providing a list of affiliates that is available via a
>     link from a resource where a party describes DNT practices are
>     examples of ways to provide this discoverability.
>
>     Within the context of a given user action, afirst party is a party
>     with which the user intends to interact, via one or more network
>     interactions, as a result of making that action. Merely hovering
>     over, muting, pausing, or closing a given piece of content does
>     not constitute a user's intent to interact with another party.
>
>     In some cases, a resource on the Web will be jointly controlled by
>     two or more distinct parties. Each of those parties is considered
>     a first party if a user would reasonably expect to communicate
>     with all of them when accessing that resource. For example,
>     prominent co-branding on the resource might lead a user to expect
>     that multiple parties are responsible for the content or
>     functionality.
>
>     For any data collected as a result of one or more network
>     interactions resulting from a user's action, a third party is any
>     party other than that user, a first party for that user action, or
>     a service provider acting on behalf of either that user or that
>     first party.
>
>
> On Jan 8, 2014, at 8:38 AM, "Ninja Marnau" <ninja@w3.org 
> <mailto:ninja@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>> Thank you, Mike! I will add it to the wiki and maybe Rob and and you 
>> can discuss in the call today whether to merge it.
>>
>> Ninja
>>
>> Am 08.01.14 14:34, schrieb Mike O'Neill:
>>> Hi Ninja,
>>>
>>> Here is my definition of contexts. It has the same drift as Rob's so 
>>> I expect we will converge.
>>>
>>> Contexts are the user discernable locales within which they can give 
>>> or withdraw their consent to data controllers for the collection and 
>>> use of data about their web activity, geo-location or identity.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ninja Marnau [mailto:ninja@w3.org]
>>>> Sent: 07 January 2014 23:04
>>>> To: public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>; Rob van 
>>>> Eijk
>>>> Subject: Re: tracking-ISSUE-240 (Context): Do we need to define 
>>>> context?
>>>> [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]
>>>>
>>>> I created a wiki page with text proposals for ISSUE-240:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_the_definition_of_conte
>>>> xt
>>>>
>>>> Currently, only Roy's initial text proposal is listed.
>>>>
>>>> Rob, as you suggested a completely different approach (rather user
>>>> expectation than relation to party/branding) in your email from 
>>>> December
>>>> 18, could you work on an text proposal to add to the wiki page?
>>>>
>>>> Ninja
>>>>
>>>> Am 18.12.13 19:37, schrieb Tracking Protection Working Group Issue 
>>>> Tracker:
>>>>> tracking-ISSUE-240 (Context): Do we need to define context? [Tracking
>>>> Preference Expression (DNT)]
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/240
>>>>>
>>>>> Raised by: Justin Brookman
>>>>> On product: Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)
>>>>>
>>>>> The definition of tracking that was adopted by the group includes 
>>>>> a concept of
>>>> "context" that some members have asked that the text define more 
>>>> clearly.
>>>>> Roy Fielding was the author of this definition, and included this 
>>>>> language on
>>>> context in the Call for Objections poll:
>>>>> The above definition also depends on there being a definition of 
>>>>> context that
>>>> bounds a scope of user activity, though it is not dependent on any 
>>>> particular
>>>> definition of that term. For example, something along the lines of: 
>>>> "For the
>>>> purpose of this definition, a context is a set of resources that 
>>>> share the same
>>>> data controller, same privacy policy, and a common branding, such 
>>>> that a user
>>>> would expect that data collected by one of those resources is 
>>>> available to all
>>>> other resources within the same context."
>>>>> Alternatively, the group might decide that the common sense meaning of
>>>> context is sufficient, as it more closely approximates a user's 
>>>> general intent in
>>>> turning on the Do Not Track signal.
>>>>> We will continue discussion of this topic on the January 8th call, 
>>>>> but we
>>>> encourage discussion of these (and other) ideas on the list in the 
>>>> meantime.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>