Re: Selecting a subset of texts for preparing ISSUE-5 for a call for objection

Yes, but I believe the Chairs are trying to pare down the options to present to the group, and I am unsure how much support there is for NO DEFINITION.  The person who offered that particular proposal is no longer us, and another proponent of that proposal (me) has changed his mind and/or his opinion no longer counts because he's now chair.

But if NAI wants to argue that there's no need to define tracking, that's totally fine, just tell us what you want.

On Oct 25, 2013, at 4:27 PM, "Jack L. Hobaugh Jr" <jack@networkadvertising.org> wrote:

> Justin,
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t a proposal for no definition already exist?  Isn’t that proposal No. 2?
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 25, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org> wrote:
> 
>> And we have not made such a decision! But if we were to do some version of 3 or 4 (or 3.5), I believed I heard broad support for a definition of tracking in the TPE document.  However, if you now believe that is unnecessary, you can propose that NO DEFINITION be included in the Call for Objections.
>> 
>> On Oct 25, 2013, at 4:11 PM, David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I thought we called that option 3.5. It was an idea, somewhat different from had been polled on, and I didn't think we had made a decision that would be the route forward.
>>> 
>>> On 2013-10-25 4:08 PM, Justin Brookman wrote:
>>>> As we discussed on the call last week, if we were to proceed under some version of Options 3 or 4 (under the poll), we would put a definition of tracking in TPE.
>>>> 
>>>> On Oct 25, 2013, at 3:56 PM, David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I was confused by that as well, Justin. I thought one option on the table was to work on the TPE only.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2013-10-25 3:26 PM, Marc Groman wrote:
>>>>>> I don't know that I agree with that.  I think there are potential paths forward that do not require those terms to be defined in a TPE.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marc M. Groman
>>>>>> President & Chief Executive Officer 
>>>>>> Network Advertising Initiative 
>>>>>> 1634 Eye Street NW., Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
>>>>>> P: 202-835-9810 | mgroman@networkadvertising.org 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> <Mail Attachment.gif>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Oct 25, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Justin Brookman wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Well, we're still shoring up the options for definitions of tracking and parties this week.  Those are foundational concepts, and will need to be defined no matter how the group proceeds (unless it were to shut down work entirely).  So people should continue to work together to help consolidate options (and I appreciate that you have been offering constructive text and options, David!), 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 2013, at 1:30 PM, David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> +1 Before we continue substantive work , we need an understanding of what path we're on.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 2013-10-25 1:27 PM, John Simpson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thanks  for raising this Shane. The group needs to understand fully how the chairs and the W3C staff perceived the information received in the poll, the lack of comments by a majority of the working group and the observations made in the telephone meeting and how they propose to go forward in a meaningful way.
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Matthias,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Will the Co-Chairs and W3C Staff be sharing the official position on how best to move forward post the poll results review?  On Oct 16th I asked how long we should expect for this to occur and the response at that time was about 2 weeks.  With that in mind, it's my expectation we'll learn this at next week's meeting.  Is that a fair expectation?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>> - Shane
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org] 
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 9:46 AM
>>>>>>>>>> To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Selecting a subset of texts for preparing ISSUE-5 for a call for objection
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Team,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> for preparation of next week's call, I would like to assemble a shortlist of proposals that we use for the call for objections:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Tracking_Definition
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I took the liberty and added the text discussed in last week's telco (revised Proposal 1) as a first initial candidate since I perceived support from several members of the group.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> PLEASE/TODO:
>>>>>>>>>> If you cannot live with any of the proposals currently shortlisted, please nominate an extra one to shortlist while explaining
>>>>>>>>>>     - What is the shortcoming of the currently shortlisted proposals
>>>>>>>>>>     - How does the newly added proposal mitigate this shortcoming
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> This will enable me to compile a list of (hopefully) less than 7 alternatives to then use as the set of alternatives on our call for objection.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> matthias
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>