Re: ISSUE-4 and clarity regarding browser defaults

Roy, this precise issue came up on the weekly call on Wednesday, and   Aleecia concluded that there was disagreement among the group on the   precise question of whether DNT:1 could be on by default, and that we   would discuss the issue in Seattle.  You can obviously do whatever you   like to the document, but I just wanted to point out that the editors   seem to disagree with your statement that we have reached consensus on   this point.  The minutes from the last call   (http://www.w3.org/2012/05/30-dnt-minutes) seem to back up my argument,   but perhaps I am confused and misunderstood what was said on Wednesday   --- guidance from the chairs on this point would be helpful.  (Also, FWIW, there is   also another raised ISSUE-143 on whether "activating a tracking preference   must require explicit, informed consent from a user" . . .)
  
  In the meantime, if you or anyone else could shed some light on why   DNT:1 on by default would make the standard more challenging to   implement, I would very much like to hear substantive arguments about   how that would not be workable.  Thus far, I have only heard assertions   by fiat that we can't discuss the issue and tautological interpretations   of the word "preference."  If there are technical reasons by DNT:1 on   by default would pose problems, what are they (I'm not saying they don't   exist, I just don't know)?  _____  

From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com]
To: public-tracking@w3.org protection wg [mailto:public-tracking@w3.org]
Sent: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 19:59:09 -0400
Subject: ISSUE-4 and clarity regarding browser defaults

As I understand it as editor, the current consensus decision of this WG
  is that no DNT header field is sent unless it is specifically enabled
  through some act of the user, whether that be by configuration,
  specific installation, or free choice to use software that has enabling
  DNT as its purpose.  I have not heard of any change to that consensus.
  That is ISSUE-4 (closed 26-Oct-2011).
  
  Note that this is not the same issue as the default for what it means
  when no header field is received, which we also agreed on as being
  dependent on the user's regional/cultural/use context.
  
  I have heard that at least some people seem to think the current
  TPE spec is unclear about the no-header-by-default protocol
  requirement, mostly because the same section focuses on intermediaries.
  I intend to fix that as an editorial concern.  Please feel free
  to send suggested text to the mailing list.
  
  If anyone wants to revisit the decision on ISSUE-4, then they should
  do so through the normal process described by the chairs, including
  the provision of new information so that the discussion can be reopened.
  
  Please understand that all of our discussion since Santa Clara has
  been with the assumption of the no-header-by-default requirement.
  If that changes, then all of our decisions since then will have to be
  revisited.
  
  Cheers,
  
  Roy T. Fielding                     <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
  Principal Scientist, Adobe Systems  <http://adobe.com/enterprise>