Re: Batch closing of issues (ISSUE-144, ISSUE-187, ISSUE-190, ISSUE-173, ISSUE-138) [pls Respond by Jan 30]

Matthias,  

A member of W3C staff reached out to thank me for keeping track of the group's state on this issue.  I'm quite confused: Is it now out of order to recall the positions that various participants have taken?

As for my views, they're still nascent.

Jonathan


On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:

>  
> Hi Jonathan,
>  
>  
> if this is OK with you, I will let others speak for themselves.
>  
> I would like to learn from you whether  
>  (a) You can live with this revised approach where browsers can double-check the exceptions that are collected at a site
>  (b) If not,  
>     what are YOUR specific substantiated concerns?
>     why/how have they been resolved in the prior proposal?
>     how could we improve the revised approach in order to mitigate your concerns?
>  
>  
> Thanks a lot!
>  
> matthias
>  
>  
>  
> On 22/01/2013 22:32, Jonathan Mayer wrote:
> > Advertising participants appear to favor no consent requirements and control over the exception experience.  Advocates favor well-defined consent rules and browser intermediation in the exception experience.  A vague consent standard and primarily third-party control over the exception experience reflect some measure of compromise from both sides, to be sure, but I'd hardly characterize it as a "middle ground."  
> >  
> > At any rate, that's all besides the point.  The group does not have consensus in favor of the new approach.  ISSUE-144 should not be closed.  
> >  
> > Jonathan  
> >  
> >  
> > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> >  
> > > Jonathan,
> > >   
> > > To your points, I believe the middle-ground it appears many agreed to (from both sides - at least at the last F2F and recent calls/IRC) was:
> > >   
> > > - Consent:  keep the need for explicit consent but don’t define this in granular terms (cuts both ways from an activation / exception perspective)
> > > - Exceptions and UAs:  allow exceptions to be directly recorded but allow UAs to optionally build verifications systems if they so desire
> > >   
> > > If you disagree with these concessions from both sides, please let the group know.
> > >   
> > > Thank you,
> > > - Shane
> > >   
> > > From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]  
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:38 PM
> > > To: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)
> > > Cc: David Singer; public-tracking@w3.org (mailto:public-tracking@w3.org) (public-tracking@w3.org (mailto:public-tracking@w3.org))
> > > Subject: Re: Batch closing of issues (ISSUE-144, ISSUE-187, ISSUE-190, ISSUE-173, ISSUE-138) [pls Respond by Jan 30]  
> > >   
> > > Participants from the advertising industry have raised objections about standards for consent in the new model.  Advocacy group members have expressed concerns about removing browser chrome from the exception user experience.  It seems apparent that we do not have a consensus in favor of the new approach.
> > >  
> > >   
> > >  
> > > Jonathan
> > >  
> > >   
> > >  
> > > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
> > > > Hi Jonathan,
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > I believe that we agree to focus on this new approach:
> > > > - Many participants expressed preference for the new approach (while saying that some fine-tuning is still required)
> > > > - All participants "can live with" this new approach
> > > >  
> > > > From a privacy perspective, IMHO it is beneficial that user agents can validate exceptions  
> > > > with the actual user and can keep an (editable) database of all granted exceptions. Also - due to the fact that less
> > > > requirements are imposed on the UA - I believe that UAs can compete and differentiate more effectively with this new approach.
> > > >  
> > > > Opinions?
> > > >  
> > > > Regards,
> > > > matthias
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > On 22/01/2013 17:57, Jonathan Mayer wrote:  
> > > > > Do we have a consensus in favor of the new approach to exceptions?  It's been discussed a lot, but as I recall, some members of the group have reservations.  
> > > > >  
> > > > >   
> > > > >  
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 3:23 AM, David Singer wrote:
> > > > > > If we close these, I suggest that those that are mentioned in the text get their mentions removed, specifically:
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >   
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > On Jan 21, 2013, at 14:07 , Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org (mailto:mts-std@schunter.org)> wrote:
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >   
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > > --------------------------------
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > ISSUE-144: User-granted Exceptions: Constraints on user agent behavior while granting and for future requests?
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >   
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > IMHO, the new approach to exceptions has removed the requirements on the user agent.
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > As a consequence, I believe we can close this issue.
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > ----------------------------------
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > ISSUE-190: Sites with multiple first parties
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/190
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >   
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > Roy has proposed changes as response to ACTION-328 and (unless there are objections), I suggest to implement the changes suggested:
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Nov/0004.html
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >   
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >   
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > please let the editors know when to clean these two references from the document…
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >   
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > David Singer
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  
> > > > >  
> > > > >   
> > > > >  
> > > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > >  
> > >   
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> >  
> >  
>