15:42:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:42:35 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/05-dnt-irc
15:43:07 <aleecia> Chair: aleecia
15:48:58 <aleecia> agenda+ Old business: review of action items
15:49:47 <aleecia> agenda+ New business: third parties (action-8, action-12)
15:49:58 <karl> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:50:17 <aleecia> agenda+ New business: first parties (action-9, action-10, action-11)
15:50:19 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
15:50:21 <aleecia> (thanks, Karl!)
15:50:38 <aleecia> agenda+ New business: response headers
15:50:56 <aleecia> agenda+ next meeting time & adjourn
15:51:04 <aleecia> zakim, code?
15:51:07 <Zakim> sorry, aleecia, I don't know what conference this is
15:52:13 <aleecia> (Phone +1617761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225))
15:54:16 <aleecia> zakim, who's on the call?
15:54:16 <Zakim>  has not yet started, aleecia
15:54:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see fielding, RRSAgent, Zakim, aleecia, tl, schunter, mischat, karl, dsriedel, kcs, hober, trackbot, pde
15:54:41 <tl> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:54:41 <Zakim>  has not yet started, tl
15:54:42 <Zakim> On IRC I see fielding, RRSAgent, Zakim, aleecia, tl, schunter, mischat, karl, dsriedel, kcs, hober, trackbot, pde
15:54:45 <aleecia> ...Karl, can you help me out here? what do I need to do to start the call?
15:55:04 <tl> aleecia, i'm on the phone call...
15:55:08 <aleecia> As am I
15:55:09 <KevinT> KevinT has joined #dnt
15:55:21 <tl> but zakim is playing hard to get?
15:55:24 <aleecia> So I have something wrong in the initial set up
15:55:31 <tl> zakim, help!
15:55:32 <Zakim> Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot for more detailed help.
15:55:34 <Zakim> Some of the commands I know are:
15:55:35 <Zakim>  xxx is yyy       - establish yyy as the name of unknown party xxx
15:55:38 <Zakim>                     if yyy is 'me' or 'I', your nick is substituted
15:55:40 <Zakim>  xxx may be yyy   - establish yyy as possibly the name of unknown party xxx
15:55:42 <Zakim>  I am xxx         - establish your nick as the name of unknown party xxx
15:55:44 <Zakim>  xxx holds yyy [, zzz ...] - establish xxx as a group name and yyy, etc. as participants within that group
15:55:49 <Zakim>  xxx also holds yyy - add yyy to the list of participants in group xxx
15:55:53 <Zakim>  who's here?      - lists the participants on the phone
15:55:58 <karl> it is still 11:55
15:55:58 <Zakim>  who's muted?     - lists the participants who are muted
15:56:03 <Zakim>  mute xxx         - mutes party xxx (like pressing 61#)
15:56:06 <Zakim>  unmute xxx       - reverses the effect of "mute" and of 61#
15:56:09 <Zakim>  is xxx here?     - reports whether a party named like xxx is present
15:56:13 <Zakim>  list conferences - reports the active conferences
15:56:14 <Zakim>  this is xxx      - associates this channel with conference xxx
15:56:16 <Zakim>  excuse us        - disconnects from the irc channel
15:56:18 <Zakim> I last learned something new on $Date: 2010/03/15 18:49:04 $
15:56:19 <karl> the call is meant to start at 12:00
15:56:27 <karl> zakim, this is dnt
15:56:27 <Zakim> ok, karl; that matches Team_(dnt)16:00Z
15:56:37 <karl> hmmm
15:56:44 <aleecia> zakim, who's on the call?
15:56:45 <Justin> Justin has joined #dnt
15:56:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see aleecia, [Mozilla], npdoty
15:56:52 <Zakim> + +1.646.825.aaaa
15:57:06 <davidwainberg> davidwainberg has joined #dnt
15:57:11 <tl> zakim, [Mozilla] has tl
15:57:11 <Zakim> +tl; got it
15:57:13 <aleecia> Thank you mischat & karl - my cheat sheet needs a 2.0 revision :-)
15:57:34 <Zakim> + +1.813.366.aabb
15:57:50 <efelten> efelten has joined #dnt
15:57:50 <tl> zakim, initiate the omega protocol
15:57:51 <Zakim> I don't understand 'initiate the omega protocol', tl
15:57:52 <KevinT> Hi Kevin Trilli joining soon
15:58:00 <tl> =[
15:58:05 <Zakim> + +1.202.326.aacc
15:58:11 <Zakim> + +1.202.637.aadd
15:58:15 <efelten> Zakim, aacc is efelten
15:58:19 <Alex> Alex has joined #dnt
15:58:21 <Zakim> +efelten; got it
15:58:26 <karl> interesting I wonder if we have an official slot in the calendar. To ping nick about it http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20111005
15:58:32 <dsinger_> dsinger_ has joined #dnt
15:58:37 <aleecia> zakim, who's talking?
15:58:42 <Zakim> + +1.415.520.aaee
15:58:51 <Zakim> aleecia, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: efelten (20%)
15:59:02 <efelten> Sorry, I'm muted now
15:59:06 <Zakim> +dsinger
15:59:09 <aleecia> thanks!
15:59:38 <aleecia> Good morning!
15:59:38 <tl> trackbot, what's the agenda?
15:59:38 <trackbot> Sorry, tl, I don't understand 'trackbot, what's the agenda?'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
15:59:43 <jmayer> jmayer has joined #dnt
15:59:47 <aleecia> zakim, agenda?
15:59:48 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
15:59:50 <Zakim> 1. Old business: review of action items [from aleecia]
15:59:53 <Zakim> 2. New business: third parties (action-8, action-12) [from aleecia]
15:59:54 <Zakim> 3. New business: first parties (action-9, action-10, action-11) [from aleecia]
15:59:55 <Zakim> 4. New business: response headers [from aleecia]
15:59:59 <Zakim> 5. next meeting time & adjourn [from aleecia]
16:00:34 <aleecia> member:trackbot, start meeting
16:00:35 <Zakim> + +1.202.326.aaff
16:00:38 <Zakim> + +1.202.263.aagg
16:00:47 <aleecia> That joke never gets old
16:00:50 <Zakim> + +49.721.913.74.aahh
16:01:04 <Zakim> + +1.212.231.aaii
16:01:07 <Zakim> + +1.202.684.aajj
16:01:14 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:01:23 <aleecia> Hi, please use "aaff is aleecia" or similar syntax for your phone number
16:01:24 <BrianTs> BrianTs has joined #dnt
16:01:24 <dsinger_> zakim, who is here?
16:01:30 <PederMagee> PederMagee has joined #DNT
16:01:34 <Zakim> + +1.408.349.aakk
16:01:37 <Zakim> +??P75
16:01:39 <efelten> Zakim, aaff is PederMagee
16:01:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see aleecia, [Mozilla], npdoty, +1.646.825.aaaa, +1.813.366.aabb, efelten, +1.202.637.aadd, +1.415.520.aaee, dsinger (muted), +1.202.326.aaff, +1.202.263.aagg,
16:01:46 <Zakim> ... +49.721.913.74.aahh, +1.212.231.aaii, +1.202.684.aajj, [Microsoft], +1.408.349.aakk, ??P75
16:01:47 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has tl
16:01:51 <Zakim> +PederMagee; got it
16:01:53 <Zakim> On IRC I see PederMagee, BrianTs, jmayer, dsinger_, Alex, efelten, dwainberg, Justin, KevinT, fielding, RRSAgent, Zakim, aleecia, tl, schunter, mischat, karl, dsriedel, kcs, hober,
16:01:58 <Zakim> ... trackbot, pde
16:01:59 <dwainberg> zakim, aaaa is dwainberg
16:02:12 <jmayer> Zakim, aajj is jmayer
16:02:14 <Zakim> + +1.949.525.aall
16:02:16 <Zakim> +dwainberg; got it
16:02:19 <cris> cris has joined #dnt
16:02:19 <Zakim> + +1.714.852.aamm
16:02:24 <clp> clp has joined #dnt
16:02:26 <Zakim> +jmayer; got it
16:02:30 <clp> Charles L. Perkins, arriving.
16:02:41 <WileyS> WileyS has joined #DNT
16:02:59 <clay_opa_cbs> clay_opa_cbs has joined #dnt
16:03:07 <KevinT> zakim, aaee is ktrilli
16:03:15 <clp> scribe is clp
16:03:18 <Zakim> + +1.813.366.aann
16:03:28 <Zakim> +??P31
16:03:30 <tl> trackbot, start meeting
16:03:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:03:34 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
16:03:35 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
16:03:35 <trackbot> Date: 05 October 2011
16:03:38 <Zakim> +ktrilli; got it
16:03:40 <Zakim> + +1.908.541.aaoo
16:03:46 <aleecia> agenda?
16:03:50 <KevinT> zakim, aaee is KevinT
16:03:51 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
16:03:52 <jkaran> jkaran has joined #dnt
16:03:52 <aleecia> zakim, agenda?
16:03:56 <Justin> zakim 8812 is Justin
16:04:00 <dsriedel> zakim, 1654 is dsriedel
16:04:00 <clp> Aleecia:  agenda
16:04:02 <BrianTs> zakim, [Microsoft] has BrianTs
16:04:06 <clp> ... moving onto old business
16:04:13 <clp> ... any comments on action items before?
16:04:16 <Zakim> sorry, KevinT, I do not recognize a party named 'aaee'
16:04:18 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
16:04:19 <karl> zakim, mute me
16:04:20 <Zakim> 1. Old business: review of action items [from aleecia]
16:04:23 <Zakim> 2. New business: third parties (action-8, action-12) [from aleecia]
16:04:26 <Zakim> 3. New business: first parties (action-9, action-10, action-11) [from aleecia]
16:04:27 <fielding> Zakim, aamm is fielding
16:04:28 <Zakim> 4. New business: response headers [from aleecia]
16:04:32 <Zakim> 5. next meeting time & adjourn [from aleecia]
16:04:34 <Zakim> sorry, dsriedel, I do not recognize a party named '1654'
16:04:35 <Zakim> +BrianTs; got it
16:04:38 <Zakim> sorry, karl, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:04:43 <Zakim> +fielding; got it
16:04:43 <dsriedel_> dsriedel_ has joined #dnt
16:04:49 <Zakim> +??P66
16:05:01 <Zakim> + +1.212.631.aapp
16:05:12 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
16:05:17 <tl> zakim, who is talking?
16:05:21 <aleecia> Sean did complete action-5
16:05:28 <Zakim> tl, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: aleecia (88%)
16:05:33 <Noga> Noga has joined #dnt
16:05:45 <clp> clp asks about the help aleecia needed last week, I did not get email to help you?
16:05:47 <Zakim> -??P31
16:06:02 <jmayer> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/5
16:06:18 <Zakim> +??P3
16:06:29 <karl> zakim, +??P3 is karl
16:06:29 <Zakim> sorry, karl, I do not recognize a party named '+??P3'
16:06:32 <clay_opa_cbs> zakim 3724 is clay_opa_cbs
16:06:32 <hefferjr> hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:06:33 <karl> zakim, ??P3 is karl
16:06:34 <Zakim> +karl; got it
16:06:37 <Zakim> + +41.76.349.aaqq
16:06:45 <clp> Aleecia:  checking on text in email for Action-5 (shane)
16:06:52 <karl> zakim, mute me
16:06:52 <Zakim> karl should now be muted
16:07:28 <clp> Aleecia:  NOTE:  send things to the mailing list
16:07:43 <clp> ... don't set things in the system itself
16:08:07 <clp> ... Nick has something for David
16:08:21 <clp> ... David will speak later we think about it.
16:09:10 <clp> clp reminds Aleecia of help with text
16:09:18 <clp> ... comparison document.
16:09:35 <clp> aleecia: new business:
16:09:49 <clp> ... regarding the proposals that went out to the list
16:10:02 <clp> ... 1st and 3rd parties...  Jonathan begins
16:10:38 <Zakim> + +1.571.309.aarr
16:10:40 <aleecia> next agenda
16:10:44 <aleecia> next agenda
16:10:55 <clp> jmayer:  His definition has three parts
16:11:02 <clp> ... first is technical precautions
16:11:08 <dsriedel_> zakim, 1654 is dsriedel
16:11:08 <Zakim> sorry, dsriedel_, I do not recognize a party named '1654'
16:11:39 <clp> ... same origin policy maps directly to the things we want
16:11:44 <clp> ... second:  internal controls
16:11:54 <Zakim> - +1.408.349.aakk
16:11:59 <aleecia> next agendum
16:12:07 <clp> ... within a company, to make sure that 3rd party things aren't going on
16:12:15 <clp> ... cross site data, ability to track across them
16:12:31 <clp> ... third:  should be some legally enforceable committments
16:12:38 <clp> ... some overlap to where Shane and he went
16:12:51 <clp> ... also have to be enforceable by individual users
16:12:57 <clp> ... list there should be no surprise
16:13:03 <clay_opa_cbs> +q
16:13:17 <ShaneW> ShaneW has joined #DNT
16:13:18 <dwainberg> q+
16:13:21 <aleecia> ack clay_opa_cbs
16:13:30 <clp> clay: he can't speak to legal enforcement
16:13:41 <clp> ... your definition of cross site... what were you thinking exactly?
16:13:47 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
16:14:05 <clp> jmayer:  I meant that in the sense that this is information that could be used to identify individual or devices across sites
16:14:15 <clp> ... hard to define clearly, can be jumbled, should be clear
16:14:24 <clp> clay: across domains? businesses?
16:14:34 <clp> jmayer: across first party
16:14:49 <clp> clay: same as definition of 1st party, thanks.
16:14:50 <aleecia> ack dwainberg
16:15:33 <clp> dwainberg: not clear how 3rd party would make legally enforceable agreements to 1sr party?
16:15:43 <clp> .... why technical sep. and public commitment rather than contracts?
16:15:46 <tl> q+
16:15:56 <ShaneW> Unable to join bridge - was kicked out and number is no longer accepting calls
16:16:10 <andyzei> andyzei has joined #dnt
16:16:16 <ShaneW> Trying VOIP and Mobile
16:16:38 <clp> jmayer: part 1 of question was...?
16:16:48 <clp> ... resolve with just a contract
16:16:54 <clp> ... commitments other than web site?
16:17:08 <clp> dwainberg: how would it work, and why choose this form, public and enforceable, how and why?
16:17:11 <aleecia> (Phone +1617761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225)) -- if that's not working, I'll see what we can do on capacity 
16:17:31 <aleecia> And let W3C know we're running into trouble with only 33 people
16:17:34 <ShaneW> That's the number I'm trying - not working through multiple modes
16:17:39 <clp> ... why not instead just look at whether data is proprietary to 1st party.
16:17:39 <aleecia> Grrrn.
16:19:04 <aleecia> q?
16:19:10 <clp> jmayer: <response lost by scribe>
16:19:10 <aleecia> ack tl
16:19:41 <clp> Tom: ... 1st party doesn't have same incentives as the user
16:19:47 <clp> ... harm to user won't hurt them
16:20:29 <Kimon> Kimon has joined #dnt
16:20:33 <clp> ... imagine a third party who instead of following the requirement to download and keep it propritary
16:20:49 <dsriedel_> zakim, aahh is dsriedel
16:20:49 <Zakim> +dsriedel; got it
16:20:50 <clp> ... the first party has no harm, but user could be hurt, tracked
16:20:58 <Zakim> +??P76
16:21:15 <clp> ... the user also has a right of action in that situtaion
16:21:23 <clp> dwainberg: does the user really have right of action here?
16:21:47 <ShaneW> Any updates on phone call access?  Still unable to join through multiple channels and attempts [frustrating]
16:21:54 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
16:21:58 <aleecia> q?
16:22:09 <jmayer> dwainberg, that's a messy issue of law that I tried to avoid getting into in the definition
16:22:15 <clp> Alieecia: on to Tom
16:22:19 <adrianba> Present+ adrianba
16:22:34 <adrianba> Present+ andyzei
16:22:39 <clp> tom:  my 3rd party proposal says they may not store user or transmit any info received except
16:22:52 <dwainberg> jmayer, the problem is, once you start adding contractual reqs to the standard you are into meesy issues of law
16:22:58 <clp> ... intermittet storange and use just for this response is allowed
16:23:04 <clp> ... or if truly anonmized
16:23:13 <clp> ... or if other exemption explicitly
16:23:20 <jmayer> dwainberg, no specific legal forms required, just an outcome
16:23:38 <clp> ... then data for that must be limited to that exemption
16:23:47 <jmayer> dwainberg, let companies that comply satisfy the legal requirement in whatever form works for them
16:23:59 <clp> ... in addition, of the 3rd party *know* that user has opted back in, they can resume normal tracking
16:24:11 <mischat_> mischat_ has joined #dnt
16:24:14 <Zakim> + +1.408.349.aass
16:24:23 <ShaneW> Back on the phone call
16:24:29 <clp> ... they can use the info planing transmitted like IP, referred, etc. as long as they don't use it for detailed indexes into further targeted advertising
16:24:32 <npdoty> tl is describing https://people.mozilla.com/~tlowenthal/dnt/tpwg_action-8_proposal.md
16:24:39 <aleecia> Good, thanks. Sorry for that. I'll ask Nick to look into that.
16:24:40 <mischat_> mischat_ has joined #dnt
16:24:41 <jkaran> q+
16:24:42 <clp> ... region coding good, but something with details of user income etc not OK
16:24:56 <aleecia> q?
16:24:59 <clp> Shane:  IP address look is country level
16:25:07 <clp> Tom: that is absolutely OK
16:25:30 <clp> Shane: where is the point where it is no longer acceptable?
16:25:34 <jmayer> +q
16:25:37 <clp> ... somewhere in greater LA?
16:25:49 <clp> Tom: not familiar with details of the existing databases
16:25:59 <clp> ... not a bright line yet in proposal
16:26:20 <clp> ... precise is bad for now, general is good
16:26:29 <aleecia> ack jkaran
16:26:42 <aleecia> q?
16:26:44 <clp> jkaran: sounds like it will be sep discussion, another IP adds usage question
16:27:02 <aleecia> ack jmayer
16:27:02 <clp> aleecia: bright line on IP / geography again
16:27:04 <npdoty> do we need a separate issue on IP geolocation precision? or is there some more generic description of that issue?
16:27:24 <clp> jmayer: restrictions on use... what limitations on retention?
16:27:34 <aleecia> I think we should see if we're going down this path at all first, but if we are, we will need an issue there
16:27:35 <clp> ... hash referer, drop IP?
16:27:43 <clp> tom:  great question
16:27:49 <Zakim> -??P66
16:28:01 <clp> ... come at it from other direction, any storage disallowed except emphemeral
16:28:06 <Justin> q+
16:28:07 <clp> ... types of logging that are acceptable
16:28:17 <aleecia> ack justin
16:28:19 <dwainberg> q+
16:28:31 <clp> justin:  treats cross site anayltics?
16:28:54 <clp> ... if data is collected and perfectly anonmized, neilsen can use?
16:29:01 <clp> Tom:  Yes
16:29:06 <tl> tl has joined #dnt
16:29:13 <clp> justin:  may be stored, but can it be used?
16:29:28 <clp> tom: things that may or may not be done at time of request
16:29:36 <clp> ... 5 minutes later, you can do whatever you want
16:29:44 <jmayer> +q
16:29:53 <aleecia> ack dwainberg
16:29:59 <clp> ... eg fraud records, anonymous data, use later OK
16:30:33 <clp> dwainberg:  the party must not use *any* info to target ad
16:30:38 <clp> ... two related ?s
16:30:43 <clp> ... definie targeted ad
16:30:49 <Zakim> -jmayer
16:30:56 <clp> ... expalain rationale... concern is about profile build up
16:31:07 <Zakim> +jmayer
16:31:14 <clp> ... limitations in this proposal ... seems to go beyond what we discussed before
16:31:31 <clp> tom: talking about serving a targeted ad...
16:31:42 <clp> ... others chime in if not right
16:31:55 <clp> ... serving an Ad using knowledge you had about the user before this transcation
16:32:04 <clp> dwainberg: so no info from this session?
16:32:11 <clp> tom: from this request, yes
16:32:17 <clp> ... people don
16:32:19 <jkaran> q+
16:32:20 <aleecia> so this gets to a big question of what DNT is: does it mean no targeted ads, or does it mean no information between sites, or some mix of both
16:32:24 <aleecia> q?
16:32:36 <clp> ... want profiles built up, but sometimes users browse with DNT on, or off
16:32:54 <clp> ... user wants no Ads when DNT is on, even if collected when DNT was on previously
16:33:08 <clp> ... off above
16:33:20 <ShaneW> Agreed - both further profiling should be halted and OBA targeting should be halted
16:33:28 <aleecia> ack jmayer
16:33:30 <clp> jmayer:  suggestion for structure
16:33:38 <clp> ... gets to some other issues in addition
16:33:40 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
16:33:42 <karl> Is it "no ads" or "no targeted ads" not the same thing
16:33:59 <clp> ... as this evolves, break up some of the sections into the other issues / separate them as stand alone
16:34:06 <ShaneW> No "OBA Targeted" Ads
16:34:07 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #dnt
16:34:19 <aleecia> ack jkaran
16:34:21 <clp> tom:  give me some red lines, suggested section please
16:34:33 <Zakim> +[Apple]
16:34:37 <clp> jkaran: about the 3rd party tom mentioned...
16:34:40 <Zakim> -dsinger
16:34:54 <clp> ... if that means not using stored data, so other types of targeting is open, OK
16:34:54 <dsinger> zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:34:54 <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
16:35:04 <vincent> why users should not see targetted ads if the profile was built when DNT was off?
16:35:34 <clp> aleecia: what is the user experience?
16:35:44 <clp> ... does it make it feel like DNT works for them?  or not works for them?
16:35:57 <clp> ... the two proposals vary greatly on this
16:35:59 <aleecia> q?
16:36:22 <dsinger> I agree with the proposer; advertising per se is not tracking; tracking is remembering data or using remembered data. DNT means treat me as someone about whom you previously knew nothing, and about whom you are remembering nothing
16:36:30 <karl> vincent, because I suppose once DNT is on, they are not supposed to be known in the context of that transaction. A bit like a mask you would put on your face entering in a shop
16:36:51 <clp> dwaingberg: find it hard to generate proposals or comment on them without the definitions in place
16:37:08 <clp> ... get consensus early on meaning of terms
16:37:17 <ShaneW> +q
16:37:30 <clp> aleecia:  for framing... trying to take up obvious cases
16:37:48 <clp> ... this is the URL you typed in, 1st party, seemed clear, vs. 3rd party
16:37:59 <clp> ... looking for base cases, as easy as possible, to get early starting point
16:38:28 <clp> ... if we all agree for 1st party, how they respond, not what it is yet
16:38:36 <clp> ... not word smithing yet
16:38:39 <dmckinney> dmckinney has joined #dnt
16:39:10 <clp> ... we all haven't had enough time to compare them side by side yet
16:39:16 <clp> ... true?
16:39:39 <tl> tl has joined #dnt
16:39:49 <ShaneW> +1 - Need more time
16:39:49 <fielding> +1
16:39:50 <clp> +1
16:39:50 <Kimon> +1
16:39:52 <dwainberg> +1 
16:39:53 <BrianTs> +1
16:39:54 <dsriedel_> +1
16:39:54 <cris> +1
16:39:54 <adrianba> +1
16:39:55 <KevinT> +1
16:39:55 <dsinger> +1 needs time
16:39:56 <jkaran> +1
16:39:57 <clay_opa_cbs> +1
16:39:59 <jmayer> -1?
16:40:02 <Alex> +1
16:40:03 <ShaneW> LOL
16:40:04 <dmckinney> +1
16:40:28 <karl> -----------
16:40:29 <jmayer> +1
16:40:30 <Justin> The two proposals look at different things
16:40:30 <tl> +1
16:40:39 <Justin> Jonathan's is a subset of what Thomas writes about
16:40:48 <Justin> Not remotely!
16:41:08 <clp> aleecia:  suggest we take the rest of this discussion to mailing list
16:41:29 <vincent> karl, ok but implicit assumption that profile is stored by the third party (might be by the client)
16:41:35 <clp> ... not just clarifying question but different viewpoints, get into open, work thru them, more time with text, and more text welcome
16:41:42 <clp> ... moving forward to 1st party
16:41:58 <clp> ... tom proposal summary
16:42:12 <ShaneW> Could someone please post link to Tom's proposal in IRC?
16:42:14 <clp> tom: had should should Not and Mays
16:42:31 <clp> ... protect user's privacy and anonymity if possible
16:42:47 <clp> ... give user info about steps they take, or give user options to better protect
16:43:02 <clp> ... closely align with Jonathon's 3rd party propsal
16:43:10 <clp> ... the should not section similar to the above
16:43:11 <Justin> https://people.mozilla.com/~tlowenthal/dnt/tpwg_action-9_proposal.md is Thomas's proposal
16:43:29 <clp> ... the only hard rule is:  only store pieces of info for a particular purpose
16:43:40 <aleecia> q?
16:43:42 <clp> ... state exactly what is collected and why when DNT is on
16:43:56 <aleecia> ack ShaneW
16:44:00 <aleecia> (sorry)
16:44:25 <clp> shane: is it that w3c not say what to do in operationally with DNT?
16:44:31 <clp> ... they define it in privacy policy?
16:44:45 <clp> ... a consolidate approach?  or individuals orgs. do it on their own?
16:45:02 <clp> tom:  I have a very different opinions of 1st and 3rd parties
16:45:07 <fielding> q+
16:45:18 <clp> ... user choice, and transparent, saying what you are going to do, with 1st party
16:45:27 <clp> ... user has little choice for 3rd parties
16:45:35 <clp> ... so strong restrictions should be in place for them
16:45:55 <clp> ... for example, fraud exceptions for 3rd parties will be detailed
16:46:15 <clp> ... but in 1st parry, they can use and do anything as long as they are up front about it
16:46:30 <clp> shane:  trying to understand the breasth of the proposal...
16:46:58 <aleecia> Clarification
16:46:58 <clp> ... industry wide policy... what they won't do?  or to the other side
16:47:14 <aleecia> I'm trying to nudge substance to the dlist
16:47:16 <clp> ... uniforme réponse, on DNT
16:47:25 <clp> ... no variablilty?
16:47:57 <clp> tom: 3rd parties should be more strongly restricted, user choice limited, hard for them to even discover who they are, what policies are
16:48:07 <clp> ... for first parties, it is stronger that the status quo
16:48:21 <clp> ... stating exactly which pieces of data you collect, and for what use
16:48:31 <clp> ... closer to Germany or UK rules, new to US
16:48:39 <clp> shane: out of scope?
16:48:41 <clay_opa_cbs> q+
16:48:49 <aleecia> ack fielding
16:48:50 <fielding> I think Tom has a very different view of what DNT means than I do.  DNT should not have any effect on first parties.  DNT only refers to cross-party tracking -- not targeting. The user is asking not to be tracked.  They are not asking for a non-customized experience (directly).
16:48:56 <dwainberg> q+
16:49:16 <clp> fielding:  I don't see DNT having anything to do with targeting
16:49:33 <clp> ... user does not want to turn off customized experience
16:49:55 <aleecia> q?
16:49:55 <clp> aleecia:  there is a genuine difference about what the DNT is or does... two views
16:50:17 <dwainberg> agreed
16:50:23 <ShaneW> agreed
16:50:24 <clp> fielding: fair to say that I do not agree on what DNT is here... based on text / definition we have not talked about yet
16:50:34 <clp> aleecia:  split in group of what DNT is / should be
16:50:48 <clp> ... how and why the proposals differ reflect that
16:50:51 <aleecia> ack clay_opa_cbs
16:51:02 <aleecia> ack dwainberg
16:51:05 <dsinger> I agree that targeted is merely a symptom of tracking. Ideally we don't talk about ads at all.
16:51:18 <clp> dwainberg: how this proposal interacts with the contractual relationship between user and first party?
16:51:27 <clp> ... contracts override?
16:51:36 <clp> tom: DNT signal is a contractual relationship
16:51:47 <clp> dwainberg: what about preexisting agreements?
16:51:51 <JC> JC has joined #dnt
16:52:19 <clp> tom: we have discussed opt-in, so the DNT is a default, they there can be opt-in when a site needs to do more, asks user
16:52:37 <clp> dwainberg:  to be clear, user visits a site, registers to a site, agrees to TOS
16:52:46 <clp> ... that allows them to collect certain data
16:52:52 <clp> ... DNT then voids those terms?
16:53:20 <ShaneW> Out of SCOPE
16:53:21 <clay_opa_cbs> My question had been about Opt In, but I didn't see that as a clarifying question. ;-)
16:53:22 <clp> tom:  users could be preemptively opted back in under some conditions...but illegible TOS that hide agreements not godo
16:53:26 <clp> ... good
16:53:44 <clp> aleecia: what does DNT mean?
16:53:46 <ShaneW> Let's try to "fix" all online privacy in one pass :-)
16:53:47 <clp> ... capture different views
16:53:54 <ShaneW> Let's NOT try to "fix"... 
16:53:56 <fielding> ISSUE-2?
16:53:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-2 -- What is the meaning of DNT (Do Not Track) header? -- raised
16:53:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/2
16:54:29 <JC> I assume that we restricting the definition to 3rd party personalization
16:54:37 <dsinger> strongly believe that "tracking" means collecting information about me and storing it (and using it later, sharing it with others to use)
16:54:40 <clp> aleecia:  a more specific subset of Issue 2 here
16:55:02 <Justin> Are you saying that no customization = no first-party customization too?
16:55:04 <Zakim> - +1.212.231.aaii
16:55:10 <clp> ... (a) no customization, users are seen for the first time every time
16:55:14 <aleecia> Issue: Does DNT mean at a high level: (a) no customization, users are seen for the first time, every time. (b) DNT is about data moving between sites.
16:55:15 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-89 - Does DNT mean at a high level: (a) no customization, users are seen for the first time, every time. (b) DNT is about data moving between sites. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/89/edit .
16:55:19 <clp> ... (b) data moving between sites
16:55:27 <ShaneW> Depends on context - 1st party vs. 3rd party
16:55:45 <clp> +q
16:55:47 <dwainberg> q+
16:55:47 <npdoty> proposed issu: does DNT choice imply no customization (even on a single site) or does it refer to tracking across multiple sites?
16:55:49 <tl> +q
16:55:54 <dsinger> q+
16:56:01 <jkaran> q+
16:56:41 <npdoty> clp: possible to have both opinions from the user's point of view
16:56:47 <aleecia> changing text on issue-89: Charles (clp) thinks it's not either/or but union view: some customization looks like tracking and it hasn't been turned off.
16:56:53 <aleecia> ack clip
16:57:00 <aleecia> ack clp
16:57:03 <jkaran> q-
16:57:05 <npdoty> … certain customizations even on a single site may look to the user like tracking
16:57:13 <aleecia> ack dwainberg
16:57:21 <clp> dwainberg:  customization, seen for the first time, are 2 different things
16:57:26 <clp> ... eg geographical
16:57:34 <clp> ... not lumped into the same thing
16:57:56 <clp> aleecia: so not seeing for the first time, more about personalized customized?
16:58:05 <ShaneW> Agree with David - DNT = Use of previously collected information outside of the current session
16:58:16 <npdoty> so customization -> customization based on past collected data?
16:58:23 <clp> dweinberg: customization can happen without tracking the user, just using the data of this interaction
16:58:28 <jmayer> or customization without collection
16:58:33 <jmayer> lots of work on this
16:58:36 <Justin> Agree with David/Shane if session ---> transaction
16:59:00 <clp> dweinberg:  another layer to it...
16:59:01 <aleecia> Trying to refine wording on: Does DNT mean at a high level: (a) no customization, users are seen for the first time, every time. (b) DNT is about data moving between sites.
16:59:03 <clp> ... what data exactly?
16:59:16 <dsinger> agree with David; customize using data "presented in the current transaction" if you like; but don't store data, and don't use stored data, about me
16:59:16 <clp> ... does it make a difference if it s the web history?  interest profile?
16:59:32 <clp> ... interests only in cookie?  vs server side store?
16:59:44 <aleecia> q?
16:59:52 <ShaneW> +q
16:59:53 <aleecia> ack tl
17:00:03 <clp> tom:  I would break it down via 1st and 3rd parties
17:00:11 <clp> ... tracking vs instant cusimization text?
17:00:15 <Zakim> - +41.76.349.aaqq
17:00:22 <clp> aleecia: just trying to capture this
17:00:31 <Zakim> - +1.949.525.aall
17:00:58 <fielding> Customization based on first-party data (data obtained previously directly from the user or provided by the user in this request) should not be impacted by DNT
17:01:02 <clp> tom: seeing the user for the first time, vs. cross site tracking, but in the context of 1st vs 3rd, and user experience and expectation being the factors
17:01:06 <aleecia> q?
17:01:11 <ShaneW> Scope of DNT Appllication:  Permitted uses irrespective of DNT signal vs. halted uses due to DNT signal
17:01:19 <Zakim> -karl
17:01:29 <clp> ... if users sees an advert is uncannily accurate with DNT turned on, bad feeling for user
17:01:42 <aleecia> ack dsinger
17:02:00 <dsinger> strongly believe that "tracking" means collecting information about me and storing it (and using it later, sharing it with others to use), or using stored data about me; using real-time data from the current transaction is ok; treat me as someone about whom you know nothing, and remember nothing
17:02:14 <clp> dsinger:  ... missed some ... remember nothing, real-time vs..
17:02:17 <aleecia> know nothing and remember nothing -> first impression
17:02:30 <clp> aleecia:  know nothing, and remember nothing, correct?
17:02:33 <clp> dsinger: yes
17:02:35 <aleecia> ack ShaneW
17:02:43 <clp> shane: agrees in the context in the delivery of an online Ad
17:02:51 <clp> ... tehre will be a set of permissible data uses
17:02:57 <clp> ... everyone agreed in theory
17:03:02 <JC> Can I respond to the statement?
17:03:07 <clp> ... operational uses, fraud, etc
17:03:07 <aleecia> we're moving on
17:03:24 <dsinger> fully understands there are carve-outs (legal requirements, fraud, party-relationships etc.), yes
17:03:31 <JC> I don't feel that DNT should be tied to do not remember
17:04:13 <clp> clp notes that calendar went out said the calls are 1 hour long, please fix 
17:04:26 <Zakim> -npdoty
17:04:41 <clp> jc: saying do not track, tracking, do not remember sounds like delete everything about me
17:04:41 <dsinger> ok, "do not remember anything about me from this transaction"
17:05:14 <clp> aleecia: back to the agenda
17:05:19 <tl> tl has joined #dnt
17:05:31 <aleecia> zakim, agenda?
17:05:31 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
17:05:32 <Zakim> 2. New business: third parties (action-8, action-12) [from aleecia]
17:05:33 <Zakim> 3. New business: first parties (action-9, action-10, action-11) [from aleecia]
17:05:34 <Zakim> 4. New business: response headers [from aleecia]
17:05:36 <Zakim> 5. next meeting time & adjourn [from aleecia]
17:05:40 <clay_opa_cbs> +1
17:05:40 <clp> jmayer: clearest proposal, 1st party does not have to do anything with DNT
17:05:54 <ShaneW> Agreed (but will depend on definition of 1st party)
17:06:27 <clp> Aleecia:  assuming we know what it is eventually, in this simple case
17:06:33 <dsinger> aside, there is dispute about who a 1st party is, but that is separate
17:06:48 <clp> ... summarizes
17:06:59 <clp> ... jmayer: 1st party doesn't need to work about DNT
17:07:16 <clp> ... tom: there are specific requirements, most on notice, but some other as wekk
17:07:18 <clp> ... well
17:07:31 <clp> Tom: notice, and suggestions
17:07:41 <karl> karl has joined #dnt
17:07:59 <aleecia> q?
17:08:05 <tl> q+
17:08:10 <aleecia> ack tl
17:08:41 <clp> tom: reiterate:  jmayer 3rd party silo'ing responsibilities should apply to both, should for 1st, must for 3rd
17:09:11 <fielding> q+
17:09:23 <Zakim> - +1.571.309.aarr
17:09:39 <aleecia> ack fielding
17:09:50 <clp> fielding: the 1st party should not be sending out different content depending on the DNT signal
17:09:52 <clay_opa_cbs> +q
17:10:02 <clp> ... because there may be a contract that overrides the DNT signal
17:10:12 <clp> ... eg, amazon data collection existing agreement
17:10:28 <clp> ,,, user sending DNT to them won't override the agreement with them
17:10:57 <clp> ... so in this case, 1st party should not change what is being sent out, since user could have 3rd party agreements
17:11:08 <clp> Aleecia: not actually suggested in either proposal
17:11:25 <clp> ... what you are saying is a user can visit a site, and agree to the following
17:11:36 <clp> ... agree to DNT not applying to this site
17:11:41 <clp> ... worth thinking about how to resolve this
17:11:44 <clp> ... but move on
17:11:53 <clp> clay:  what the first party decides
17:11:56 <clp> ... is out of scope
17:12:10 <aleecia> clay_opa_cbs
17:12:11 <dsinger> "I refuse your DNT because you are visiting a site whose terms state that their third parties can refuse it"?
17:12:12 <fielding> clp: agreed
17:12:21 <aleecia> ack member:clay_opa_cbs
17:13:00 <clp> aleecia: take up issue 81
17:13:11 <ShaneW> +q
17:13:14 <clp> ... when receiving a DNT does server respond?
17:13:17 <JC> +q
17:13:18 <tl> q+
17:13:25 <clay_opa_cbs> q-
17:13:27 <aleecia> ack clay_opa_cbs
17:13:33 <aleecia> ack ShaneW
17:13:33 <clp> shane:  we had discussed this in Cambridge meeting
17:13:41 <clp> ... agreed there would be a challenge/response
17:14:02 <clp> ... should be response, yes i received what you said, or I will not honor it because of...
17:14:26 <dsinger> …agrees that a response is hugely valuable; "I see your DNT and respect it", "No, I am the first party", "No, you have given me consent"…
17:14:35 <clp> ... techically, contractually puts you on the hook, is audit able, keeps the biz honest
17:14:43 <aleecia> ack JC
17:14:50 <aleecia> q?
17:14:56 <clp> jc: a great idea to have one, yet have it be optional?
17:14:56 <fielding> q+
17:15:11 <clp> ... they have other ways to say I agree, for small sites
17:15:24 <clp> aleecia:  it's really very easy to send back an answer
17:15:32 <dwainberg> q+
17:15:36 <clp> ... small distinction not huge one
17:15:40 <clp> ... so noted, optional
17:15:46 <aleecia> q?
17:15:51 <aleecia> ack tl
17:15:52 <dsinger> if you don't respond, I will presume the worst about you (that you don't understand DNT)...
17:15:54 <clp> ... use case small biz / sites
17:16:16 <clp> tom: server should respond with what they heard, and what they will do
17:16:29 <clp> ... just a 2-3 line changes to apache config, is very easy to fix
17:16:44 <clp> ... in future will be ever easier
17:16:50 <aleecia> ack fielding
17:16:57 <clp> ... response header is easiest part of complying
17:17:14 <tl> +q
17:17:40 <clp> fielding:  the people modifying the config files, and the policy, can be different groups
17:17:44 <tl> i have i direct response
17:17:49 <clp> .... could be harder to do one or other
17:17:55 <fielding> and they might not even be the same company
17:18:18 <clp> tom: if depts. can't agree, not a great company
17:18:21 <aleecia> ack dwainberg
17:18:24 <clp> dsinger: two things
17:18:25 <tl> q-
17:18:39 <fielding> see dreamhost.com
17:18:40 <clp> ... not sure it's so simple to implement, if contingent on prior user consent
17:18:56 <aleecia> yahoo stores is another good example along similar lines
17:19:14 <aleecia> and: they inherit priv policies no matter what from yahoo?
17:19:22 <clp> ... question: are there cases where 3rd parties not able or not capable of not sending a responce back?
17:19:48 <aleecia> whoops - I said David and dwainberg jumped in
17:19:55 <dsinger> s/dsinger: two things/dwainberg: two things/
17:19:55 <aleecia> sorry dsinger
17:19:56 <clp> tom: if user makes a HTTP request to a 3rd party, then gets some content back, that response can have the DNT response header in it
17:19:59 <Alex> q+
17:20:04 <tl> q-
17:20:08 <clp> ... no conceivable way it could not be sent
17:20:09 <dwainberg> sorry -- did I jump the line? apologies.
17:20:21 <aleecia> ack Alex
17:20:25 <tl> q+
17:20:29 <clp> alex: clarification... 1st party or any whatsoever?
17:20:39 <clp> aleecia: next is 1st party
17:21:07 <clp> alex: from what I have been hearing... on some occasions, we will have to look at see if we have prior permission of user to not obey DNT
17:21:14 <clp> ... not just turning on or off of static reponse
17:21:19 <clp> ... am I wrong?
17:21:23 <adrianba> it may well be easy to add the header - it might not be easy to get the value from existing systems to add into the header - it's all software so it's possible but it's also work
17:21:27 <clp> aleecia: you are right
17:21:33 <tl> q-
17:21:35 <fielding> yes, they are trivial to implement -- the problem is who knows what the response {0 | 1} should be.  What part of the infrastructure for a site makes the decision that the entire party is compliant?  I say that is the role of a business-wide policy document, not a header field.
17:21:43 <clp> ... first doing any respond, then what it looks like
17:22:19 <clp> ... send response seems OK, would it mandatory, what look like, etc. eventually
17:22:31 <clp> ... consensus on OK to send response
17:22:33 <clp> ?
17:22:43 <dsriedel_> for one site, the browser will also recieve multiple answers due to multiple requests within the same site, from 1st and 3rd parties. so another question might be how to visualize all the answers to the users
17:22:43 <clp> +1
17:22:46 <tl> +1
17:22:46 <jkaran> +1
17:22:52 <ShaneW> +1
17:22:54 <fielding> -1
17:22:58 <clay_opa_cbs> 0
17:23:03 <Justin> +1 (only if they're not going to follow on third-party basis)
17:23:04 <JC> -1
17:23:05 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
17:23:11 <jmayer> +1
17:23:13 <hefferjr> -1
17:23:13 <KevinT> +1
17:23:20 <dsinger> 0 - it's optional, but I will presume the worst without it
17:23:20 <clp> clay: sees it either way
17:23:24 <dwainberg> 0
17:23:32 <fielding> (we can't mandate things that are not true of existing deployed servers)
17:23:54 <tl> fielding, yes we can: those existing servers are non-compliant
17:24:10 <dsinger> q+
17:24:14 <fielding> tl: no, their compliance is unknown
17:24:26 <tl> fielding, no: they aren't compliant with DNT
17:24:51 <dwainberg> I did not mean it as abtension
17:24:55 <fielding> tl: which means DNT cannot be mandated -- we can only mandate what DNT means
17:25:01 <aleecia> taking up: ISSUE-81	Do we need a response at all from server?
17:25:15 <Justin> The question aleecia asked wasn't "yes" to 81 --- it was "sometimes yes" to 81.  Definitely not consensus to "yes" on 81.
17:25:27 <tl> fielding, any new web standard requires modification to deployed systems. that's the whole point
17:25:31 <jmayer> +q
17:25:43 <dsinger> ack dsinger
17:25:45 <clp> shane: talking about what 0 means
17:25:50 <efelten> Does this call for *should* / *may* rather than *must* approach?
17:25:52 <clp> ... is it abstention?  no
17:26:09 <tl> fielding, we can't force people to use dnt, only require them to respond if they use it
17:26:21 <JC> Should
17:26:25 <tl> must
17:26:32 <Zakim> -PederMagee
17:26:40 <KevinT> one variation is that it could be sent once if it could be represented persistantly
17:26:57 <clp> 4 minutes remain in the call FYI
17:27:28 <tl> q+
17:27:40 <fielding> tl: HTTP is not a new web standard, but yes we can require them to respond *if* they implement DNT.  That isn't the same as saying all parties must respond.
17:27:56 <aleecia> ack jmayer
17:27:56 <clp> aleecia:  should or must, on mailing list 
17:28:01 <jmayer> -q
17:28:03 <tl> fielding, i completely agree. i think that we should make replying a condition of compliance
17:28:16 <aleecia> ack tl
17:28:20 <clp> tom: happy to take an Action to take straw man about the response
17:28:51 <clp> tom: providing a repines is a condition of complying with DNT, his side
17:28:56 <Justin> I'll volunteer
17:28:56 <JC> Okay
17:29:18 <clp> Aleecia:  JC will write the other side
17:29:24 <Zakim> -ktrilli
17:29:27 <clay_opa_cbs> Is the "?" aka "Don't Know" response on the table? ;-)
17:29:36 <clp> ... deadline?
17:29:41 <Zakim> -dwainberg
17:29:43 <clp> jc: when do you need it?
17:29:46 <clp> aleecia: friday?
17:29:51 <clp> jc: yes
17:30:04 <clp> jc: should a header response be optional
17:30:22 <aleecia> tl?
17:30:29 <clp> aleecia: tom also by friday?
17:30:38 <clp> tom: more comfy for Tues
17:30:49 <clp> aleecia: monday?
17:30:52 <clp> tom: yes
17:30:58 <aleecia> q?
17:30:58 <JC> Ok
17:31:18 <Zakim> - +1.212.631.aapp
17:31:19 <tl> action: tl to propose a spec for a required dnt response by monday 9am
17:31:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-13 - Propose a spec for a required dnt response by monday 9am [on Thomas Lowenthal - due 2011-10-12].
17:31:21 <clay_opa_cbs> clay_opa_cbs has left #dnt
17:31:21 <Zakim> - +1.202.637.aadd
17:31:22 <Zakim> - +1.813.366.aabb
17:31:24 <Zakim> -aleecia
17:31:24 <Zakim> -??P75
17:31:25 <Zakim> -jmayer
17:31:25 <Zakim> -dsriedel
17:31:26 <clp> adjourned
17:31:26 <Zakim> -efelten
17:31:26 <Zakim> - +1.202.263.aagg
17:31:28 <Zakim> - +1.408.349.aass
17:31:33 <Zakim> -[Apple]
17:31:34 <Zakim> -fielding
17:31:41 <Zakim> -??P76
17:31:44 <Zakim> - +1.908.541.aaoo
17:31:59 <aleecia> action: jc to write straw man proposal on response from server being optional (related to Issue-81) by monday
17:31:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-14 - Write straw man proposal on response from server being optional (related to Issue-81) by monday [on JC Cannon - due 2011-10-12].
17:32:29 <aleecia> action: tl to write straw man proposal on response from server being required (related to Issue-81) by monday
17:32:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-15 - Write straw man proposal on response from server being required (related to Issue-81) by monday [on Thomas Lowenthal - due 2011-10-12].
17:32:39 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
17:32:40 <Zakim> - +1.813.366.aann
17:32:57 <aleecia> RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
17:33:08 <aleecia> RRSAgent, make minutes
17:33:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/10/05-dnt-minutes.html aleecia
17:33:58 <aleecia> (npdoty, if there's anything else I just missed for minutes please jump in - I think I'm done)
17:39:59 <tl> aleecia, registration info for the santa clara meeting?
17:40:15 <aleecia> Up on the web - I'll grab the URL
17:40:21 <aleecia> Should've mentioned that on the call, sigh
17:41:14 <aleecia> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/ -- look for "second face-to-face meeting"
17:41:45 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:42:19 <tl> got it
17:45:01 <dsriedel_> aleecia, regarding the f2f meeting in santa clara: is this a meeting with a deeper view into the technical aspects of a DNT implemention on both sides, browser and webserver?
17:45:47 <dsriedel_> It looks like a general convention of multiple working groups, but I am not sure about its context and detail of the discussion.
17:45:54 <aleecia> The easy answer is yes. The accurate answer is, we haven't done an agenda for that meeting yet -- a lot depends on how much we accomplish in the next month leading up.
17:45:57 <aleecia> Ah! Ok -
17:46:04 <aleecia> So there are basically two things going on.
17:46:41 <mischat_> mischat_ has joined #dnt
17:46:45 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, [Microsoft.a], in Team_(dnt)16:00Z
17:46:46 <aleecia> First, there is our second face-to-face meeting. Just like MIT, but with a more advanced starting point.
17:46:46 <Zakim> Team_(dnt)16:00Z has ended
17:46:50 <Zakim> Attendees were aleecia, npdoty, +1.646.825.aaaa, tl, +1.813.366.aabb, +1.202.326.aacc, +1.202.637.aadd, efelten, +1.415.520.aaee, dsinger, +1.202.326.aaff, +1.202.263.aagg,
17:46:55 <Zakim> ... +49.721.913.74.aahh, +1.212.231.aaii, +1.202.684.aajj, +1.408.349.aakk, PederMagee, +1.949.525.aall, dwainberg, +1.714.852.aamm, jmayer, +1.813.366.aann, ktrilli,
17:46:58 <Zakim> ... +1.908.541.aaoo, BrianTs, fielding, +1.212.631.aapp, karl, +41.76.349.aaqq, +1.571.309.aarr, dsriedel, +1.408.349.aass, [Microsoft]
17:47:15 <aleecia> Second, there are a whole bunch of W3C meetings. You can ask to sit in on those (with permission of the chairs) if you wish, but there's nothing you need to do.
17:47:39 <aleecia> If your only interest is the tracking protection working group, you only need to worry about the first two days.
17:47:56 <aleecia> We will only be meeting monday (10/31) and tuesday (11/1)
17:48:36 <aleecia> But the reason I find myself asking people to leaving their kids on Halloween is that we are fitting into this larger set of meetings, which is why we are stuck with those dates. Grn.
17:48:54 <aleecia> Does that make sense now?
17:49:33 <dsriedel_> I see. But this second meeting is for W3C members and acknowledged experts only, right?
17:50:01 <aleecia> Yes - rather than MIT, which was unusually open to all. 
17:50:13 <aleecia> If there are companies still working through paperwork, we'll figure it out
17:50:22 <aleecia> Thomas and Nick can best help you there.
17:50:50 <dsriedel_> Ok, thank you.
17:51:01 <dsriedel_> Also, you asked for help on some summaries or documents.
17:51:06 <aleecia> I'll summarize some of this to the mailing list, these were great questions
17:51:34 <aleecia> Yes - if you're volunteering...? That was for a comparison of different approaches to DNT
17:51:40 <dsriedel_> In certain scope I can also help on going through stuff, as this helps greatly organize and structure this huge topic.
17:52:41 <aleecia> Excellent, thank you. That is a very kind offer to make to the editors as that gets rolling more
17:53:26 <aleecia> We have some delays as companies decide to say yes to let people be editors, but we're very close to moving forward more rapidly with editors in place. Coming soon 
17:53:39 <aleecia> They will almost certainly welcome your help
17:53:39 <tl> tl has joined #dnt
17:53:55 <dsriedel_> Ok, this is on voluntary basis at the moment.
17:54:10 <tl> aleecia, is this the technical plenary thing, i'm somewhat confused by this setup...
17:54:37 <aleecia> Perfect. When you see specific pieces you're interested in, please let the editor for that document know that you're available to help. Thanks!
17:54:49 <dsriedel_> ok, thank you
17:55:03 <aleecia> Hi Tom, what confuses you? (Note that I am new too so I'll do my best and ask Thomas / Nick for more if needed)
17:55:21 <tl> is the technical plenary the meeting?
17:55:33 <aleecia> Think of them as co-located
17:55:41 <aleecia> Or even as a subset / superset relationship
17:55:47 <aleecia> So: yes.
17:55:48 <tl> so i'm registering for the "W3C Advisory Committee Meeting, All Groups Meeting and Technical Plenary" as a whole?
17:55:58 <aleecia> ...hm.
17:56:04 <aleecia> Let me go take a look.
17:57:15 <aleecia> I am looking at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2011/ -- is that where you are?
17:57:23 <tl> yes
17:58:17 <aleecia> And for Monday I'm clicking "Tracking Protection Working Group" / "Attending as a participant in this group"
17:58:41 <aleecia> And for Tuesday
18:00:07 <tl> i think i see
18:00:12 <aleecia> I'm leaving 5 blank. I think you leave 6 blank and I just watched my tuesday night go poof.
18:00:20 <tl> i was just getting intimidated by the size of the form =]
18:00:39 <aleecia> Yah, really. This is... vast.
18:01:10 <aleecia> 8 is optional for you, I think.
18:01:24 <aleecia> And I should probably go to that, and poof there goes wednesday
18:01:56 <aleecia> ...and wednesday night
18:02:25 <aleecia> So if I were you, I'd skip 8 & 9 and get me to summarize :-) But you're welcome to attend, if I read this correctly, should you be interested in doing so.
18:04:41 <aleecia> Ok, I'm going to summarize how I think people need to fill out the form to Thomas / Nick and ask for corrections. If none, I'll send to the dlist.
18:17:45 <tl> success!
18:17:49 <tl> ... i think
18:19:59 <dsriedel> goodbye
18:38:20 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
18:51:36 <Neutrino> Neutrino has joined #dnt
19:02:35 <KevinT> KevinT has joined #dnt
19:06:25 <KevinT> KevinT has joined #dnt
19:45:29 <KevinT> KevinT has joined #dnt
19:58:56 <Neutrino> Neutrino has joined #dnt
20:00:17 <KevinT> KevinT has joined #dnt
20:29:07 <KevinT> KevinT has joined #dnt
21:57:13 <Neutrino> Neutrino has joined #dnt
22:02:11 <schunter1> schunter1 has joined #dnt
22:11:15 <KevinT> KevinT has left #dnt
22:49:16 <mischat> mischat has joined #dnt
23:22:24 <Neutrino> Neutrino has joined #dnt