[Responder] Brooks Dobbs
I object to this for two distinct reasons: 1) This definition does not have meaning. It is really just a punt to another misunderstood and not agreed upon term, "context". The non-normative language actually confuses this matter further by saying that a definition is required - just not any particular definition. In reality the term "context" likely has very different meanings to different participants, meaning that the resultant definition of tracking will have an equally un-agreed upon meaning. In my opinion this definition moves us no further towards consensus. 2)Any definition of tracking in a TPE will necessarily be incomplete and therefore incorrect. If "tracking" is the activity that users will be able to effect a choice with respect to, but compliance with that choice is to be determined in another document (documents) there is a logical breakdown. If we define tracking in broad terms in a TPE and allow for a TPE compliant signal to be an expression of a choice for NOT "tracking" then any exceptions to that e.g. permitted uses, would seem to be outside of the choice a user made. While a definition is important, the definition must occur in a location to provide consistency between user expectation and compliance requirements.