It is increasingly likely that the W3C process for Do Not Track will reach an impasse.  In a recent note to Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz several consumer groups described their sense that the process is deadlocked, and asked the Chairman to intervene.  FTC officials are usually at the discussion, which are set to resume in Amsterdam this week, but in his letter to Congress last week Chairman Leibowitz made it clear that it is the private sector group not the government that will adopt any Do Not Track standard.  Even with more direct FTC intervention, however, it is unlikely that parties will act contrary to their perceived fundamental interests.

The key disagreement is an understanding of what the Do Not Track flag means and what actions users can expect from websites and service providers if they turn it on.  Without this, the Do Not Track standard is incompletely specified, and provides less than comprehensive guidance for browser providers, websites and their service providers, and the general public.

If the W3C cannot reach a common understanding, perhaps the industry can.  The Digital Advertising Alliance has been looking at this issue for some time.  Indeed, back in February it indicated to the White House that it was going to address it:

“…the DAA intends to begin work immediately with browser providers to develop the consistent language across browsers regarding the browser based header signal uniform consumer choice mechanism that is simple to use and in a clear manner that describes to consumers the effect of exercising such choice.”

Mozilla proposed an easy-to-understand focused definition of Do Not Track back at the beginning of 2011:  “Tracking is the accumulation and use of a profile by advertising networks through invisible or subtle noting of which sites an individual visits, and the use of the profile data to customize advertisements displayed.”  Or, more succinctly, DNT means “a way for people to opt-out of online behavioral advertising (OBA).”

These definitions make sense.  They focus on the issue that appears to be of most concern to the public and policymakers: cross-site tracking for the purpose of advertising profiling and targeting.  We need to give consumers another mechanism to say no to OBA if they wish.  Of course, the DAA definition should incorporate the current W3C consensus that DNT “on” imposes no obligation on first parties, except that first parties may not help third parties circumvent DNT.

Other uses of tracking should be permitted.  For example, if a website is doing standard analytics, such as keeping track of where their visitors come from and where they go, market research, product debugging and improvements, investigating possible fraud or intellectual property violations or security risks.

DAA is doing great work on OBA. Its AdChoices program already gives consumers a cookie-based mechanism to opt out of OBA.  With DNT, DAA can do the industry and the public a service by bridging the browser DNT flag with the existing AdChoices program.

Customers should be told clearly that they can decline online behavioral advertising and how to do it.  DAA is in a unique position to move forward and break the logjam that is threatening to derail the promising initiative that is DNT.

Mark MacCarthy, Vice President, Public Policy at SIIA, directs SIIA’s public policy initiatives in the areas of intellectual property enforcement, information privacy, cybersecurity, cloud computing and the promotion of educational technology. Follow the SIIA Public Policy team on Twitter at @SIIAPolicy