"Data-Driven Thinking" is written by members of the media community and contains fresh ideas on the digital revolution in media.

Todays column is written byJay Friedman, president and partner atGoodway Group.

In the cola wars, it was Coke vs. Pepsi. In the battle of the coasts, its New York vs. Los Angeles. Rap? Tupac vs. Biggie. And of course, Google vs. Facebook in the battle for identity supremacy.

Whats most notable in each of these classic rivalries, though, is that each is two-way. Third place isnt even in the discussion. Yet, thats how it appears the identity wars are being framed. That its third place thats up for grabs. Will it be LiveRamps ATS? The Trade Desks Unified ID? Or, perhaps Recurly, Piano, Zeotap, MediaWallah or one of the many others wins this portion of the market.

Meanwhile, the marketers that even have half of an eye watching this discussion are largely still putting the bulk of their money into Google and Facebook.But I dont think its third place thats up for grabs. I think its first.

Why is this believable? Because most marketers believe in the principles underpinning PRAM: Privacy is important, a healthy open internet is better for society, all marketers and publishers should have equal access to the mechanism for operating an addressable internet and dont break the law.

While ad techs typical timeline for consolidation and shakeout can last five or more years, identitys clock is ticking. IDFAs go away within a month. Cookies are still slated to be deprecated within 18 months. The industry doesnt have the time for the process to play out the same way it always has. This market must be shepherded to its steady-state, and its in the hands of publishers and advertisers to do that.

To get there, Id recommend we look at a few guardrails to keep us focused on the right outcome.

No kings needed

Maybe we should just king-make one of them and move on? I hear this unnecessary statement often. Government regulators in Europe, Australia, and the United States. are poised to act against this very notion with existing platforms. So, the solution is to make another? King-making is counter to the PRAM and IAB principles.

Open-source or trade-managed wont work either

If one end of the privatized spectrum is a handful of kings, the other end is a LUMAscape of companies all fighting to win the identity race. Neither of these solutions achieves marketers and publishers goals. The end solution must be open-source, or at a minimum managed by a trade association that listens to all but makes decisions for the greater good.

Win-win 100% positive for all

A mistake I see often is confusing the idea of a win-win deal with the idea that the end solution cant have any downsides for any party. Thats not win-win, thats a utopia. A viable solution will have downsides, but it will deliver on the PRAM and IAB principles.

There are firms whove taken funding that will no longer be relevant. One companys fingerprints will be on the solution more than another. Theres likely one bitter pill or another in here for all of us, and it will be a small price to pay as an industry.

A big olive branch to consumers

Speaking of bitter pills, Id recommend that PRAM and the IAB include a heavy olive branch to consumers in our way forward. As Brian OKelley famously said, advertising is no longer good when its creepy.

What if SKU-level retargeting was sacrificed in this way forward? Or, requiring at least three hours before retargeting? Perhaps cross-device retargeting requires a 24-hour delay? Even the appearance that our identities arent fully wired up together in the background would go a long way toward quieting the (oft misinformed) privacy and surveillance capitalism crusaders.

An open internet with an open mechanism for addressability is very achievable. Its time for our industry to play the long game.

Follow Jay Friedman (@jaymfriedman) and AdExchanger (@adexchanger) on Twitter.

Read more:

Identity Needs A Solution Capable Of Actually Winning - AdExchanger