RE: ISSUE-151 Re: Change proposal: new general principle for permitted uses

Shane,

It is clear from yesterday's meeting that you are still in for playing ball. So lets negotiate, not re-negotiate. If we are going to do this, it will be the hard way: issue by issue and through a series of calls for objection. 

As far as I am concerned, the outcome of the last call for objections was in favour of Collection Limitation for aggregated scoring based advertising. The outcome of issue 215 has shifted the balance such that Collection Limitation has become a key principle to subsequently take into account in a W3C DNT standard. If the implication of  Collection Limitation remains an obstacle for you, follow the process and please raise a formal objection against the ruling of issue 215.

Rob




Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>Rigo,
>
>I feel like we're talking past one another.
>
>1.  DNT can be set easily by any technology with access to the page
>request header outside of user control
>2.  This means we'll likely have a high percentage of DNT=1 traffic on
>the internet (some say as high as 80%)
>3.  This means sites will need to ask users if they set the DNT signal
>and/or ask for a UGE for a large majority of visitors
>4.  This is an "opt-in" paradigm - which we agreed in the beginning was
>inappropriate (DNT=<null>, user makes an explicit choice)
>
>To adopt DNT under the Swire/W3C Staff Proposal (aka June Draft),
>industry would be agreeing to shift to an opt-in model vs. agreeing to
>support a more hardened opt-out choice for users that is stored in the
>web browser safely away from cookie clearing activities (which remove
>opt-out cookies today unless the user has installed an opt-out
>preservation tool).  This is a significant shift and will not likely be
>supported by industry.  Hence the reason we're pushing back so hard on
>the current situation.
>
>I believe I'm being as fair, open, and honest about the core issue. 
>Hopefully we can work together to look for solutions to this
>unfortunate outcome (unfortunate for industry as I can imagine some on
>the advocate side would be very happy with an opt-in world).
>
>- Shane
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] 
>Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 2:17 PM
>To: Shane Wiley
>Cc: public-tracking@w3.org; Vinay Goel; John Simpson; Mike O'Neill;
>rob@blaeu.com
>Subject: ISSUE-151 Re: Change proposal: new general principle for
>permitted uses
>
>On Wednesday 24 July 2013 20:52:24 Shane Wiley wrote:
>> UGE requires a user interaction to achieve the exception - hence my 
>> comment of "opt-in". I'm not sure where you're seeing the disconnect.
>
>This is discussed in ISSUE-151. It is a requirement against the TPE,
>not TCS. ISSUE-151 is open. 
>
>I thought we have already a call to the UGE store that doesn't require
>user interaction. If this call succeeds (even with an error message),
>we could accept the DNT signal without user interaction. 
>
>So if there is a test-call without user interaction into the UGE
>missing, we should add this to ISSUE-151, discuss and decide. I don't
>expect much controversy here. 
>
> --Rigo

Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 09:46:39 UTC