IRC log of dnt on 2012-05-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:50:25 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #dnt

15:50:25 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/09-dnt-irc

15:50:34 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #dnt

15:50:40 [aleecia_]

Zakim, this is dnt

15:50:47 [Zakim]

aleecia_, I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be dnt".

15:50:56 [aleecia_]

Zakim, this will be dnt

15:50:58 [Zakim]

ok, aleecia_; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 10 minutes

15:51:07 [aleecia_]

chair: aleecia

15:51:07 [aleecia_]

rrsagent, make logs public

15:51:11 [aleecia_]

agenda?

15:51:31 [aleecia_]

agenda+ Selection of scribe

15:51:40 [aleecia_]

agenda+ comments on minutes

15:51:57 [aleecia_]

agenda+ Review of overdue action items, sorted to save time:https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner

15:52:11 [aleecia_]

agenda+ Discussion of dropping unidentified callers on conference calls

15:52:13 [efelten]

efelten has joined #dnt

15:52:22 [aleecia_]

agenda+ Revisiting press policy

15:53:03 [aleecia_]

agenda+ Open issues with no associated actions to draft text: ISSUE-65, ISSUE-97, ISSUE-99

15:53:20 [aleecia_]

agenda+ Ian's text for ACTION-190 and ISSUE-142, Allowed uses of protocol data in first N weeks.

15:53:32 [aleecia_]

agenda+ Rigo's text for ACTION-141, regarding user agents

15:53:47 [aleecia_]

agenda+ Text for ACTION-191 and ACTION-192, Update logged-in consent proposal

15:53:56 [aleecia_]

agenda+ Announce next meeting & adjourn

15:54:26 [Zakim]

T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started

15:54:33 [Zakim]

+aleecia

15:54:49 [AClearwater]

AClearwater has joined #dnt

15:56:20 [Zakim]

+ +1.609.258.aaaa

15:56:28 [BrendanIAB]

BrendanIAB has joined #dnt

15:56:32 [aleecia_]

good morning!

15:56:35 [efelten]

Zakim, aaaa is me

15:56:35 [Zakim]

+efelten; got it

15:56:46 [BrendanIAB]

Good morning

15:57:22 [Zakim]

+??P16

15:57:45 [schunter]

Zakim, +??P16 is schunter

15:57:45 [Zakim]

sorry, schunter, I do not recognize a party named '+??P16'

15:57:48 [Zakim]

+??P21

15:58:06 [schunter]

Zakim, ??P16 is schunter

15:58:06 [Zakim]

+schunter; got it

15:58:29 [npdoty]

npdoty has joined #dnt

15:58:30 [johnsimpson]

johnsimpson has joined #dnt

15:58:31 [jchester2]

jchester2 has joined #dnt

15:58:43 [schunter]

The P??xx numbers are VOIP calls (sip:)

15:58:53 [Zakim]

+AClearwater

15:58:59 [aleecia_]

And still need to be identified, please

15:59:25 [aleecia_]

So if the other VOIP caller could please speak up?

15:59:36 [Zakim]

+ +1.316.514.aabb

15:59:44 [rvaneijk]

zakim, aabb is me

15:59:44 [Zakim]

+rvaneijk; got it

15:59:45 [eberkower]

eberkower has joined #dnt

15:59:48 [Zakim]

+npdoty

15:59:50 [aleecia_]

thanks!

15:59:58 [Zakim]

+johnsimpson

16:00:00 [Zakim]

+jchester2

16:00:03 [Zakim]

+ +1.650.810.aacc

16:00:03 [aleecia_]

??p21 is BrendanIAB

16:00:05 [Zakim]

+tl

16:00:07 [Lia]

Lia has joined #dnt

16:00:10 [Zakim]

+[Mozilla]

16:00:14 [vincent_]

vincent_ has joined #dnt

16:00:15 [justin]

justin has joined #dnt

16:00:22 [bryan]

bryan has joined #dnt

16:00:29 [npdoty]

Zakim, ??p21 is BrendanIAB

16:00:29 [Zakim]

+BrendanIAB; got it

16:00:32 [Zakim]

+eberkower

16:00:34 [alex]

alex has joined #dnt

16:00:42 [eberkower]

eberkower is 646 654

16:00:46 [npdoty]

Zakim, who is on the phone?

16:00:46 [Zakim]

On the phone I see aleecia, efelten, schunter, BrendanIAB, AClearwater, rvaneijk, npdoty, johnsimpson, jchester2, +1.650.810.aacc, tl, [Mozilla], eberkower

16:00:49 [Zakim]

+Lia

16:00:57 [Joanne]

Joanne has joined #DNT

16:01:03 [Zakim]

+bryan

16:01:05 [bryan]

present+ Bryan_Sullivan (bryan)

16:01:10 [dsriedel]

dsriedel has joined #dnt

16:01:16 [sidstamm]

sidstamm has joined #dnt

16:01:18 [Lia]

Zakim, mute me

16:01:19 [Zakim]

Lia should now be muted

16:01:26 [Zakim]

+dsriedel

16:01:28 [npdoty]

Zakim, aacc is EricHeath

16:01:28 [Zakim]

+EricHeath; got it

16:01:29 [Zakim]

+alex

16:01:31 [dsriedel]

zakim, mute me

16:01:31 [Zakim]

+Cyril_Concolato

16:01:31 [Zakim]

dsriedel should now be muted

16:01:32 [JC]

JC has joined #DNT

16:01:33 [sidstamm]

Zakim, Mozilla has sidstamm

16:01:33 [Zakim]

+sidstamm; got it

16:01:52 [aleecia_]

agenda?

16:01:53 [ifette]

ifette has joined #dnt

16:02:08 [fielding]

fielding has joined #dnt

16:02:15 [Zakim]

+enewland

16:02:18 [vinay]

vinay has joined #dnt

16:02:35 [Zakim]

+Loretta_Guarino_Reid

16:02:37 [Zakim]

+ +1.202.326.aadd

16:02:39 [Zakim]

+[Microsoft]

16:02:44 [Zakim]

+fielding

16:02:48 [Zakim]

+vinay

16:02:49 [ifette]

Zakim, Loretta_Guarino_Reid is actually ifette

16:02:49 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'Loretta_Guarino_Reid is actually ifette', ifette

16:02:55 [ifette]

Zakim, Loretta_Guarino_Reid is ifette

16:02:56 [aleecia_]

scribe bryan

16:02:58 [Zakim]

+ifette; got it

16:03:01 [npdoty]

scribenick: bryan

16:03:03 [pmagee]

pmagee has joined #dnt

16:03:06 [efelten]

Zakim, aadd is [FTC]

16:03:06 [Zakim]

+[FTC]; got it

16:03:08 [ifette]

npdoty, do you know how to get Zakim to drop the association that Loretta has created permanently?

16:03:19 [ifette]

npdoty Zakim seems to think she owns half the Google phone numbers...

16:03:21 [bryan]

scribenick: bryan

16:03:32 [Zakim]

+ +1.212.664.aaee

16:03:41 [Zakim]

+ +1.203.484.aaff

16:03:44 [jmayer]

jmayer has joined #dnt

16:03:52 [bryan]

allecia: comments on minutes? no

16:03:55 [aleecia_]

https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner

16:03:58 [bryan]

... minutes are approved

16:04:00 [tedleung]

tedleung has joined #dnt

16:04:03 [Zakim]

+ +40.72.321.aagg

16:04:07 [npdoty]

s/allecia/aleecia/

16:04:08 [clp]

clp has joined #dnt

16:04:11 [Zakim]

+jmayer

16:04:17 [clp]

Charles L. Perkins, VIrtual Rendezvous, arriving.

16:04:28 [Zakim]

+tedleung

16:04:32 [bryan]

topic: action 186

16:04:33 [kj]

kj has joined #dnt

16:04:45 [hwest]

hwest has joined #dnt

16:04:51 [Ionel]

zakim, aagg is Ionel

16:04:51 [Zakim]

+Ionel; got it

16:05:03 [npdoty]

Zakim, aagg is Ionel_Naftanaila

16:05:03 [Zakim]

sorry, npdoty, I do not recognize a party named 'aagg'

16:05:08 [Zakim]

+hwest

16:05:19 [bryan]

justin: text says a public committment is needed on honoring DNT, and various ways to comply with that.

16:05:36 [Zakim]

-tl

16:05:53 [Zakim]

+??P12

16:05:54 [Zakim]

+ +1.781.472.aahh

16:05:57 [Zakim]

+tl

16:05:59 [aleecia_]

https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/186/edit

16:06:00 [bryan]

aleecia: to update the action a month out

16:06:26 [WileyS]

WileyS has joined #DNT

16:06:26 [clp]

Aleecia -- I have been away in RL moving the past 5 weeks, so have not yet assembled the Examples for you I promised about 6 weeks ago. But I have not forgotten.

16:06:27 [bryan]

topic: action 160

16:06:37 [Zakim]

-npdoty

16:06:44 [Chapell]

Chapell has joined #DNT

16:06:48 [Zakim]

+bilcorry

16:07:10 [bryan]

aleecia: shane, will this be better as two proposals or breaking out? (Shane's not on yet, to come back)

16:07:12 [rvaneijk]

pde is in irc

16:07:14 [Zakim]

+WileyS

16:07:23 [WileyS]

Shane is on now...

16:07:48 [justin]

Ok, I've pushed the due date off for two months --- will provide text once it's clear what the well-known URI and response header look like.

16:07:50 [johnsimpson]

zakim, who is on call?

16:07:50 [Zakim]

I don't understand your question, johnsimpson.

16:07:57 [Zakim]

-tl

16:08:17 [hefferjr]

hefferjr has joined #dnt

16:08:21 [johnsimpson]

zakim, who is on phone?

16:08:21 [Zakim]

I don't understand your question, johnsimpson.

16:08:28 [Zakim]

+Chapell

16:08:29 [Zakim]

+npdoty

16:08:31 [Zakim]

+alex.a

16:08:42 [Zakim]

+ +1.202.744.aaii

16:08:43 [Zakim]

+tl

16:08:48 [efelten]

Zakim, who is on the phone?

16:08:48 [Zakim]

On the phone I see aleecia, efelten, schunter, BrendanIAB, AClearwater, rvaneijk, johnsimpson, jchester2, EricHeath, [Mozilla], eberkower, Lia (muted), bryan, dsriedel (muted),

16:08:52 [Zakim]

... alex, Cyril_Concolato, enewland, ifette, [FTC], [Microsoft], fielding, vinay, +1.212.664.aaee, +1.203.484.aaff, Ionel, jmayer, tedleung, hwest, ??P12, +1.781.472.aahh,

16:08:52 [Zakim]

... bilcorry, WileyS, Chapell, alex.a, npdoty, +1.202.744.aaii, tl

16:08:52 [Zakim]

[Mozilla] has sidstamm

16:08:54 [johnsimpson]

zakim, who is on the phone?

16:08:55 [Zakim]

On the phone I see aleecia, efelten, schunter, BrendanIAB, AClearwater, rvaneijk, johnsimpson, jchester2, EricHeath, [Mozilla], eberkower, Lia (muted), bryan, dsriedel (muted),

16:08:55 [Zakim]

... alex, Cyril_Concolato, enewland, ifette, [FTC], [Microsoft], fielding, vinay, +1.212.664.aaee, +1.203.484.aaff, Ionel, jmayer, tedleung, hwest, ??P12, +1.781.472.aahh,

16:08:56 [Chris_PedigoOPA]

Chris_PedigoOPA has joined #dnt

16:08:57 [Zakim]

... bilcorry, WileyS, Chapell, alex.a, npdoty, +1.202.744.aaii, tl

16:08:58 [Zakim]

[Mozilla] has sidstamm

16:09:03 [robsherman]

robsherman has joined #dnt

16:09:17 [bryan]

wileys: we are close, expert review/validation is the mire point. but generally in the same area. waiting on peter to come back.

16:09:36 [Zakim]

+ +1.202.370.aajj

16:09:42 [robsherman]

zakim, aajj is robsherman

16:09:42 [Zakim]

+robsherman; got it

16:09:53 [bryan]

aleecia: give it another week, then hand off if needed

16:10:05 [Chris_PedigoOPA]

Zakim, aaii is Chris_PedigoOPA

16:10:05 [Zakim]

+Chris_PedigoOPA; got it

16:10:11 [bryan]

topic: action 192

16:10:25 [ifette]

ACTION-192?

16:10:25 [trackbot]

ACTION-192 -- Shane Wiley to write up proposal for allowed uses for protocol data in the first N weeks for ISSUE-142 -- due 2012-05-05 -- OPEN

16:10:25 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/192

16:10:33 [bryan]

wileys: this is not assigned to me

16:10:35 [ifette]

how did htat get assigned to shane

16:10:35 [johnsimpson]

I think Ian wrote that

16:10:37 [ifette]

i thought that was mine

16:10:50 [bryan]

... there was a proposal and a discussion of the # of weeks

16:10:58 [jmayer]

Shane focused on "Why six weeks?", not "everyone."

16:11:01 [ifette]

tracker lost the context

16:11:05 [ifette]

i could have sworn there were many emails on that

16:11:05 [bryan]

aleecia: this is on the agenda. will move it to Ian and pending review

16:11:08 [Zakim]

-Cyril_Concolato

16:11:29 [bryan]

topic: user-granted exceptions draft

16:11:32 [Zakim]

+enewland.a

16:11:41 [bryan]

wileys: draft has been with ninja for two weeks

16:11:44 [WileyS]

Jonathan, I wasn't specifically focused on "Six Weeks" - please check the email chain again.

16:11:52 [npdoty]

we created an ACTION on protocol logging proposals for Ian, Shane and Tom

16:11:55 [WileyS]

In fact, I've made no comment on that chain.

16:11:56 [enewland]

enewland has joined #dnt

16:12:00 [ifette]

q+

16:12:06 [npdoty]

maybe we had assumed that three people wanted to write different proposals?

16:12:07 [npdoty]

q?

16:12:21 [ifette]

I think ACTION-192 is a duplicate of ACTION-190 that I already did, unless the objective was to get an alternate proposal

16:12:24 [Zakim]

+Cyril_Concolato

16:12:27 [Zakim]

+[Mozilla.a]

16:12:28 [npdoty]

q?

16:12:32 [Zakim]

-tl

16:12:35 [ifette]

q+ to discuss ACTION-192, ACTION-190, ACTION-193, ACTION-194

16:12:41 [bryan]

aleecia: 9 open/overdue for Tom, we will find ways to avoid that - other volunteers? if not we will consider closing

16:12:45 [bryan]

topic: action 180

16:12:46 [clp]

Can you describe the amount of work for each item?

16:12:57 [enewland]

zakim, who is here?

16:12:57 [Zakim]

On the phone I see aleecia, efelten, schunter, BrendanIAB, AClearwater, rvaneijk, johnsimpson, jchester2, EricHeath, [Mozilla], eberkower, Lia (muted), bryan, dsriedel (muted),

16:13:01 [Zakim]

... alex, enewland, ifette, [FTC], [Microsoft], fielding, vinay, +1.212.664.aaee, +1.203.484.aaff, Ionel, jmayer, tedleung, hwest, ??P12, +1.781.472.aahh, bilcorry, WileyS,

16:13:01 [Zakim]

... Chapell, alex.a, npdoty, Chris_PedigoOPA, robsherman, enewland.a, Cyril_Concolato, [Mozilla.a]

16:13:01 [Zakim]

[Mozilla] has sidstamm

16:13:06 [Zakim]

On IRC I see enewland, robsherman, Chris_PedigoOPA, hefferjr, Chapell, WileyS, hwest, kj, clp, tedleung, jmayer, pmagee, vinay, fielding, ifette, JC, sidstamm, dsriedel, Joanne,

16:13:08 [Zakim]

... alex, bryan, justin, vincent_, Lia, eberkower, jchester2, johnsimpson, npdoty, BrendanIAB, AClearwater, efelten, Zakim, RRSAgent, aleecia_, Ionel, rvaneijk, schunter, tlr,

16:13:10 [Zakim]

... trackbot, hober, wseltzer, pde

16:13:12 [Zakim]

+??P75

16:13:16 [clp]

I can do about 5 hours of work for you Aleecia each week and take some of the items no one wants.

16:13:20 [npdoty]

action-180?

16:13:20 [trackbot]

ACTION-180 -- Thomas Lowenthal to provide a text update to section 4.3 to resolve issue 116 and ISSUE-84 -- due 2012-05-05 -- OPEN

16:13:20 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/180

16:13:26 [bryan]

aleecia: on the TPE spec. guessing Tom is the correct owner

16:13:38 [Chris_IAB]

Chris_IAB has joined #dnt

16:13:52 [bryan]

tom: this is one of the least important ones - appreciate if someone could take it

16:14:00 [vincent_]

zakim, Cyril_Concolato is really vincent_

16:14:00 [Zakim]

+vincent_; got it

16:14:12 [bryan]

allecia: avoiding JS DOM property to receive mixed signals

16:14:29 [bryan]

tom: we should not have a property unless we can resolve this issue

16:14:40 [tl]

tl has joined #dnt

16:14:51 [bryan]

aleecia: could nick help

16:14:53 [npdoty]

yes

16:15:12 [fielding]

by inline javascript, it means javascript loaded within an iframe?

16:15:24 [bryan]

... ok handoff the action and no later than COB today please

16:15:31 [npdoty]

fielding, I think we're talking about external script tags embedded in a page

16:15:36 [bryan]

topic: action 185

16:15:48 [tl]

fielding: Or just with a script src.

16:15:53 [bryan]

tom: kevin should be able to handle that

16:15:55 [fielding]

so, not "inline"

16:16:09 [bryan]

aleecia: send a note to kevin that he is assigned

16:16:16 [bryan]

topic: action 191

16:16:22 [npdoty]

q?

16:16:24 [sidstamm]

fielding, yes... third party referenced scripts, not inline.

16:16:29 [tl]

fielding: Maybe I misunderstand "inline".

16:16:36 [bryan]

aleecia: this is pending review - if more please do quickly

16:16:46 [bryan]

topic: action 177\

16:16:48 [Zakim]

-Ionel

16:16:50 [bilcorry]

bilcorry has joined #dnt

16:16:59 [npdoty]

no! we haven't

16:16:59 [bryan]

tom: this sounds done

16:17:02 [clp]

Always good news.

16:17:13 [johnsimpson]

which action, pls?

16:17:32 [bilcorry]

Zakim, mute me

16:17:32 [Zakim]

bilcorry should now be muted

16:17:33 [npdoty]

action-177?

16:17:33 [trackbot]

ACTION-177 -- Thomas Lowenthal to add an API to let a site request a web-wide exception -- due 2012-05-05 -- OPEN

16:17:33 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/177

16:17:41 [bryan]

tom: take that back - it requires copy paste of all instances of zero with one

16:17:55 [npdoty]

q+ to clarify which action we're talking about

16:18:10 [bryan]

tom: it was originally requested by ??? - if they could address that please

16:18:22 [tl]

by Abine.

16:18:41 [bryan]

nick: 177 is about web-wide exceptions.

16:18:55 [aleecia_]

ack npdoty

16:18:55 [Zakim]

npdoty, you wanted to clarify which action we're talking about

16:18:56 [ifette]

ack ifette

16:18:56 [Zakim]

ifette, you wanted to discuss ACTION-192, ACTION-190, ACTION-193, ACTION-194

16:19:14 [tl]

zakim, who is on the call?

16:19:14 [Zakim]

On the phone I see aleecia, efelten, schunter, BrendanIAB, AClearwater, rvaneijk, johnsimpson, jchester2, EricHeath, [Mozilla], eberkower, Lia (muted), bryan, dsriedel (muted),

16:19:17 [Zakim]

... alex, enewland, ifette, [FTC], [Microsoft], fielding, vinay, +1.212.664.aaee, +1.203.484.aaff, jmayer, tedleung, hwest, ??P12, +1.781.472.aahh, bilcorry (muted), WileyS,

16:19:17 [Zakim]

... Chapell, alex.a, npdoty, Chris_PedigoOPA, robsherman, enewland.a, vincent_, [Mozilla.a], ??P75

16:19:17 [Zakim]

[Mozilla] has sidstamm

16:19:23 [bryan]

ifette: 192 is a duplicate of 190

16:19:27 [tl]

zakim, mozilla.a has tl

16:19:27 [Zakim]

+tl; got it

16:19:33 [npdoty]

I think it was intended to get different versions originally

16:19:38 [bryan]

aleecia: sounds great

16:20:09 [WileyS]

I didn't want different text - I believe the entire exercise is a waste as its directly tied to the pure "unlinkable" proposal and doesn't take "permitted uses" into account.

16:20:20 [aleecia_]

ACTION-180openProvide a text update to section 4.3 to resolve issue 116 and ISSUE-84

16:20:27 [Zakim]

+Ionel

16:20:33 [npdoty]

action-177?

16:20:33 [trackbot]

ACTION-177 -- Thomas Lowenthal to add an API to let a site request a web-wide exception -- due 2012-05-05 -- OPEN

16:20:33 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/177

16:20:39 [bryan]

topic: action 180

16:20:48 [bryan]

tom: this is unstarted

16:20:54 [bryan]

nick: 180 is handed off to me

16:21:16 [bryan]

tom: is 177 not subsumed by the current API proposal?

16:21:20 [bryan]

nick: no

16:21:38 [bryan]

tom: anyone want to make that change?

16:21:39 [schunter]

nick?

16:21:49 [ifette]

i don't think we can just let it drop

16:21:49 [bryan]

tom: happy to let it drop

16:22:22 [npdoty]

q+

16:22:36 [bryan]

ifette: I think the group had consensus that this was something we wanted to support

16:22:39 [WileyS]

I can update the API text

16:22:45 [aleecia_]

thank you, Shane

16:22:47 [WileyS]

Please give me an action to do this

16:23:00 [tl]

I'll hand it off.

16:23:02 [WileyS]

Its the same API but a flip of passed arguments

16:23:04 [bryan]

nick: the current API does not support the web-wide exceptions style and need proposed text

16:23:09 [npdoty]

yes

16:23:17 [bryan]

aleecia: shane will take this one

16:23:39 [bryan]

schunter: we should just give this to an editor

16:23:46 [npdoty]

I'm not sure it's quite as simple as we're assuming

16:23:56 [bryan]

fielding: don't know what to add

16:24:06 [WileyS]

One week it'll have to be (I'm on vacation May 16th - 22nd)

16:24:10 [tl]

I'm sure Shane will inform us if it sucks.

16:24:16 [WileyS]

:-)

16:24:17 [bryan]

topic: action 167

16:24:40 [npdoty]

yes, both are tied to issue-84

16:24:44 [bryan]

tom: seems overlapping with the previous DOM API concern - the one handed off to nick

16:24:55 [bryan]

nick: this is a duplicate

16:25:07 [bryan]

aleecia: to close as dup with 180

16:25:21 [clp]

(I have been away so much I have lost track of the ending dates for documents now, what are the goal dates for next steps?)

16:25:36 [jmayer]

Proposal: move issue management off the weekly call.

16:25:38 [bryan]

topic: action 158

16:25:44 [ifette]

ACTION-167: duplicate of ACTION-180

16:25:44 [trackbot]

ACTION-167 Come up with updated text for a DOM api to allow access to DNT state notes added

16:25:51 [ifette]

ACTION-180?

16:25:51 [trackbot]

ACTION-180 -- Nick Doty to provide a text update to section 4.3 to resolve issue 116 and ISSUE-84 -- due 2012-05-16 -- OPEN

16:25:51 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/180

16:25:53 [bryan]

tom: we can drop it

16:26:00 [ifette]

RRSAgent, close ACTION-167

16:26:00 [RRSAgent]

I'm logging. I don't understand 'close ACTION-167', ifette. Try /msg RRSAgent help

16:26:01 [bryan]

aleecia: would someone else like to take it?

16:26:21 [WileyS]

We have draft text - many comments on that draft text

16:26:24 [clp]

I can volunteer to take something quick, if anyone needs to create a small action.

16:26:36 [bryan]

aleecia: anyone else? don't need a separate action item on this

16:26:53 [ifette]

close ACTION-167

16:26:53 [trackbot]

ACTION-167 Come up with updated text for a DOM api to allow access to DNT state closed

16:26:58 [jmayer]

There are some issues that need group input, to be sure. But many require just a pairwise discussion.

16:27:41 [Zakim]

+??P5

16:27:58 [jmayer]

For example, we don't all need to participate in sorting through Tom's delinquency.

16:28:16 [bryan]

(having trouble keeping up with all the #s - please summarize the AI plan)

16:28:26 [WileyS]

Sure

16:28:29 [bryan]

aleecia: shane please take 177

16:29:06 [npdoty]

zakim, agenda?

16:29:06 [Zakim]

I see 10 items remaining on the agenda:

16:29:06 [bryan]

topic: dropping unidentified callers on calls

16:29:07 [Zakim]

1. Selection of scribe [from aleecia_]

16:29:07 [Zakim]

2. comments on minutes [from aleecia_]

16:29:07 [Zakim]

3. Review of overdue action items, sorted to save time:https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner [from aleecia_]

16:29:07 [Zakim]

4. Discussion of dropping unidentified callers on conference calls [from aleecia_]

16:29:07 [Zakim]

5. Revisiting press policy [from aleecia_]

16:29:10 [Zakim]

6. Open issues with no associated actions to draft text: ISSUE-65, ISSUE-97, ISSUE-99 [from aleecia_]

16:29:11 [ifette]

Zakim, who's on the phone?

16:29:11 [Zakim]

7. Ian's text for ACTION-190 and ISSUE-142, Allowed uses of protocol data in first N weeks. [from aleecia_]

16:29:13 [Zakim]

8. Rigo's text for ACTION-141, regarding user agents [from aleecia_]

16:29:14 [npdoty]

Zakim, take up agendum 4

16:29:15 [Zakim]

9. Text for ACTION-191 and ACTION-192, Update logged-in consent proposal [from aleecia_]

16:29:17 [Zakim]

10. Announce next meeting & adjourn [from aleecia_]

16:29:20 [Zakim]

On the phone I see aleecia, efelten, schunter, BrendanIAB, AClearwater, rvaneijk, johnsimpson, jchester2, EricHeath, [Mozilla], eberkower, Lia (muted), bryan, dsriedel (muted),

16:29:23 [Zakim]

... alex, enewland, ifette, [FTC], [Microsoft], fielding, vinay, +1.212.664.aaee, +1.203.484.aaff, jmayer, tedleung, hwest, ??P12, +1.781.472.aahh, bilcorry (muted), WileyS,

16:29:23 [jmayer]

+q

16:29:24 [bryan]

aleecia: any discussion?

16:29:25 [Zakim]

... Chapell, alex.a, npdoty, Chris_PedigoOPA, robsherman, enewland.a, vincent_, [Mozilla.a], ??P75, Ionel, ??P5

16:29:27 [fielding]

shane, I updated 177

16:29:28 [Zakim]

[Mozilla.a] has tl

16:29:29 [Zakim]

[Mozilla] has sidstamm

16:29:31 [Zakim]

agendum 4. "Discussion of dropping unidentified callers on conference calls" taken up [from aleecia_]

16:29:38 [npdoty]

q-

16:29:40 [tl]

+q

16:29:43 [bryan]

... ok propose to adopt as policy

16:29:46 [aleecia_]

jack jmayer

16:29:50 [aleecia_]

ack jmayer

16:30:03 [bryan]

jmayer: need to understand the objection

16:30:09 [aleecia_]

ack tl

16:30:10 [WileyS]

+q

16:30:18 [Zakim]

+??P7

16:30:19 [aleecia_]

ack WileyS

16:30:21 [tl]

-q

16:30:31 [jmayer]

+q

16:30:51 [bryan]

wileys: people will alter or hold back candidness on the phone if unknowns are there - this will bog down progress\

16:30:55 [aleecia_]

ack jmayer

16:31:01 [npdoty]

have people on the call been holding back?

16:31:10 [bryan]

jmayer: dont understand

16:31:10 [laurengelman]

laurengelman has joined #dnt

16:31:19 [bryan]

q+

16:31:31 [bryan]

WG meetings are not public

16:31:35 [johnsimpson]

zakim, who is here?

16:31:35 [Zakim]

On the phone I see aleecia, efelten, schunter, BrendanIAB, AClearwater, rvaneijk, johnsimpson, jchester2, EricHeath, [Mozilla], eberkower, Lia (muted), bryan, dsriedel (muted),

16:31:36 [sidstamm]

if there's a concrete example where someone in this WG has been burned by a lurker, it would contribute to the discussion here...

16:31:39 [Zakim]

... alex, enewland, ifette, [FTC], [Microsoft], fielding, vinay, +1.212.664.aaee, +1.203.484.aaff, jmayer, tedleung, hwest, ??P12, +1.781.472.aahh, bilcorry (muted), WileyS,

16:31:39 [Zakim]

... Chapell, alex.a, npdoty, Chris_PedigoOPA, robsherman, enewland.a, vincent_, [Mozilla.a], ??P75, Ionel, ??P5, ??P7

16:31:40 [Zakim]

[Mozilla.a] has tl

16:31:42 [Zakim]

[Mozilla] has sidstamm

16:31:42 [aleecia_]

ack bryan

16:31:45 [Zakim]

On IRC I see laurengelman, bilcorry, tl, Chris_IAB, enewland, robsherman, Chris_PedigoOPA, hefferjr, Chapell, WileyS, hwest, kj, clp, tedleung, jmayer, pmagee, vinay, fielding,

16:31:48 [Zakim]

... ifette, JC, sidstamm, dsriedel, Joanne, alex, bryan, justin, vincent_, Lia, eberkower, jchester2, johnsimpson, npdoty, BrendanIAB, AClearwater, efelten, Zakim, RRSAgent,

16:31:50 [johnsimpson]

q+

16:31:51 [Zakim]

... aleecia_, Ionel, rvaneijk, schunter, tlr, trackbot, hober, wseltzer, pde

16:31:57 [aleecia_]

ack johnsimpson

16:32:00 [bryan]

... a member of the WG

16:32:26 [jchester2]

+q

16:32:33 [aleecia_]

ack jchester2

16:32:33 [bryan]

johnsimpson: just did a whois - can't tell who half the people are even if associated with #s

16:32:54 [aleecia_]

q?

16:32:54 [dsriedel]

Is this just about phone numbers or also ppl of non-member organizations and/or individuals?

16:32:55 [ifette]

q+

16:32:55 [bryan]

jchester: good to know who is on the call - dont mind listeners

16:33:01 [aleecia_]

ack jchester

16:33:02 [npdoty]

are those concerned about lurkers still uncertain about the handles we're using for Zakim?

16:33:15 [bryan]

are you saying it should not be restricted to WG members?

16:33:25 [aleecia_]

(Nick, can you jump in if scribing lags?)

16:33:31 [bryan]

ifette: similar concerns to presence of press at meetings

16:33:42 [jmayer]

+q

16:33:46 [aleecia_]

ack ifette

16:34:00 [bryan]

... a person may not be authorized or willing to speak if press is present - it impedes openess

16:34:02 [npdoty]

ifette: concern about a direct quote context, press or other agencies that they're not authorized to speak in front of

16:34:05 [bilcorry]

Can I revert to just a phone number? What happens if we all do?

16:34:28 [npdoty]

... not talking about limiting who can join the call, just who is who

16:34:39 [npdoty]

... have provisions for interested non-members who wish to observe

16:34:40 [bryan]

... not a notion of closing the room out of the public eye - but legit concerns about who we can speak in front of - we have procedures to follow

16:35:01 [WileyS]

As you

16:35:09 [aleecia_]

ack jmayer

16:35:11 [ifette]

q+

16:35:11 [clp_]

clp_ has joined #dnt

16:35:17 [bryan]

simon (cablelabs): could we have a statement at the beginning of the call about who is not a member?

16:35:19 [WileyS]

As you've pointed out, people can join late so a statement at the beginning of the call doesn't cover us.

16:35:21 [ifette]

q+ to note that simon wouldn't have to "jump in and identify himself"

16:35:34 [clp_]

Lost my connection before

16:35:42 [bryan]

jmayer: the problem seems to be specific categories of exclusion as a concern

16:35:44 [WileyS]

+q

16:35:57 [aleecia_]

ack ifette

16:35:57 [Zakim]

ifette, you wanted to note that simon wouldn't have to "jump in and identify himself"

16:35:58 [bryan]

... can we get agreement that in general its OK to be on the call

16:36:02 [bryan]

-1

16:36:09 [bryan]

to jmayer's proposal

16:36:12 [jchester2]

Sounds good to me, carve-outs ok

16:36:26 [WileyS]

In the spirit of "openness" I have no issues with people being on the call but they should at least identify who they are.

16:36:26 [laurengelman]

i am on the call

16:36:38 [bryan]

ifette: we should not have to go around the room - we should not slow down the call

16:36:41 [clp_]

?+

16:36:46 [clp_]

+q

16:36:48 [johnsimpson]

zakim, who is here?

16:36:48 [Zakim]

On the phone I see aleecia, efelten, schunter, BrendanIAB, AClearwater, rvaneijk, johnsimpson, jchester2, EricHeath, [Mozilla], eberkower, Lia (muted), bryan, dsriedel (muted),

16:36:51 [Zakim]

... alex, enewland, ifette, [FTC], [Microsoft], fielding, vinay, +1.212.664.aaee, +1.203.484.aaff, jmayer, tedleung, hwest, ??P12, +1.781.472.aahh, bilcorry (muted), WileyS,

16:36:52 [Zakim]

... Chapell, alex.a, npdoty, Chris_PedigoOPA, robsherman, enewland.a, vincent_, [Mozilla.a], ??P75, Ionel, ??P5, ??P7

16:36:53 [aleecia_]

q?

16:36:54 [Zakim]

[Mozilla.a] has tl

16:36:56 [Zakim]

[Mozilla] has sidstamm

16:37:00 [Zakim]

On IRC I see clp_, laurengelman, bilcorry, tl, Chris_IAB, enewland, robsherman, Chris_PedigoOPA, hefferjr, Chapell, WileyS, hwest, kj, clp, tedleung, jmayer, pmagee, vinay,

16:37:01 [Zakim]

... fielding, ifette, JC, sidstamm, dsriedel, Joanne, alex, bryan, justin, vincent_, Lia, eberkower, jchester2, johnsimpson, npdoty, BrendanIAB, AClearwater, efelten, Zakim,

16:37:03 [bryan]

aleecia: its important to be on IRC if possible

16:37:04 [Zakim]

... RRSAgent, aleecia_, Ionel, rvaneijk, schunter, tlr, trackbot, hober, wseltzer, pde

16:37:12 [clp_]

clp_ is Charles L. Perkins, FYI

16:37:14 [jmayer]

Shane, I think a compromise of "all welcome, but you must identify yourself" would be ok.

16:37:18 [npdoty]

ifette, there are likely to always be a couple that can't join IRC and may need to announce themselves, but I agree we don't need to go around the room or anything like that

16:37:29 [WileyS]

Jonathan, we're in agreement then!

16:37:35 [bryan]

... two separate but similarly motivated concerns - knowing who is on the call, and who is the call open to

16:37:45 [npdoty]

WileyS and jmayer agree! :)

16:37:55 [bryan]

... we have not had agreement to close the call down to WG members

16:37:55 [aleecia_]

q?

16:37:55 [tl]

Consensus!

16:37:57 [bryan]

q+

16:38:02 [johnsimpson]

my point is that even if people are associated with their number in IRC, I still don't know many are...

16:38:07 [aleecia_]

ack WileyS

16:38:24 [clp]

.

16:38:30 [bryan]

wileys: it isn't that everyone isn't welcome, just that they have to be id'd

16:38:34 [aleecia_]

ack clp_

16:38:38 [jchester2]

That sounds great. Identify yourself

16:38:50 [bryan]

clp: membership is designated by W3C

16:39:05 [bryan]

aleecia: different groups operate differently

16:39:34 [npdoty]

clp, membership is a formal process, but feel free to follow up with me

16:39:45 [jmayer]

I'd like to point out the irony of a privacy group requiring identity to participate. Someone's going to.

16:39:53 [bryan]

aleecia: speak with nick on that

16:39:57 [WileyS]

Nick, how do I reassign an open action? I go to edit the action and it doesn't allow me to change this. https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/177

16:40:00 [aleecia_]

ack bryan

16:40:11 [clp]

Thanks nick

16:40:32 [WileyS]

Jonathan - :-)

16:40:38 [clp]

We talked about this at MIT the first few days.

16:40:40 [bryan]

please send a link to when the group reached consensus on opening to non-members - that is unusual

16:40:42 [tl]

jmayer: I plan to connect my sockpuppet to IRC over tor with a humorous pseudonym, and associate that with a second phone number.

16:40:55 [clp]

It was a discussion between formal meetings

16:40:55 [npdoty]

WileyS, that action is currently assigned to you, I can help edit it if you need more changes

16:41:05 [WileyS]

Nick, Thank you.

16:41:12 [aleecia_]

q?

16:41:16 [bryan]

aleecia: that was an early discussion - may not be able to point to a decision point

16:41:52 [bryan]

aleecia: if no dissent, we will drop unID'd callers

16:41:59 [bryan]

... from the next call

16:42:03 [bilcorry]

Nick is Sgt at Arms?

16:42:06 [clp]

And "identifying yourself" is simplyy something like:

16:42:12 [clp]

clp is Charles L. Perkins, Virtual Rendezvous ?

16:42:13 [bryan]

... ok, we will do that

16:42:24 [BrendanIAB]

Name or Name plus Organization?

16:42:28 [bryan]

topic: press policy

16:42:36 [tl]

clp, no, more like "Zakim aaaa is clp."

16:42:40 [bryan]

aleecia: we do not invite the press to F2F or calls

16:42:45 [efelten]

efelten has joined #dnt

16:42:53 [johnsimpson]

i think we mean just associate you're IRC handle with your telephone number, right?

16:42:58 [jmayer]

BrendanIAB, the concern was understanding who's represented. That would seem to necessitate organization, not just name.

16:43:04 [bryan]

... for meetings, the chairs have declined to invite press - do not need to go to the WG for that

16:43:06 [BrendanIAB]

cool thanks.

16:43:17 [ifette]

q+

16:43:17 [npdoty]

BrendanIAB, I think name plus organization is great when people might not know you, though eventually the group knows people

16:43:20 [jmayer]

+q

16:43:25 [aleecia_]

ack ifette

16:43:53 [jchester2]

+q

16:43:57 [bryan]

ifette: one of the things that we saw was press articles were written from the F2F, and the risk of reporting out of context is a concern

16:44:19 [bryan]

agreed - the differences were way overblown in press reports

16:44:44 [bryan]

ifette: concern over someone reporting on something overheard on calls - they are not going to have the right context

16:44:50 [aleecia_]

ack jmayer

16:44:52 [npdoty]

ifette, do we think press are likely to be less contextually informed if they're not listening to calls and meetings?

16:45:00 [ifette]

npdoty, yes

16:45:14 [justin]

Actually, I think it was members of this group who were quoted in the press as framing the Washington meeting as a showdown . . . ;)

16:45:16 [aleecia_]

:-)

16:45:16 [tl]

+q to say that if we had some competent, ethical press, this wouldn't be as much of a problem.

16:45:18 [tl]

-q

16:45:23 [bryan]

jmayer: undoubtedly some crummy coverage -people looking for story - characters and conflict are part of modern media

16:45:54 [WileyS]

+q

16:45:58 [bryan]

... requiring text to interpret on their own is problematic - they would be in a better position if allowed to be in the room

16:46:26 [ifette]

zakim, who's making noise?

16:46:30 [ifette]

(someone is breathing pretty heavily)

16:46:37 [Zakim]

ifette, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: jchester2 (28%), jmayer (59%), npdoty (4%)

16:46:45 [ifette]

jchester?

16:46:45 [bryan]

... when engaged they tend to get things better. we need to be careful in weighing risk of public exposure and transparency

16:46:46 [tl]

Darth Zilla

16:46:49 [aleecia_]

ack jchester

16:46:53 [Zakim]

-Ionel

16:47:02 [schunter]

Zakim, who is making noise?

16:47:11 [bryan]

jchester: we should try to invite press

16:47:13 [Zakim]

schunter, listening for 11 seconds I could not identify any sounds

16:47:20 [bryan]

q+

16:47:24 [jmayer]

I'd prefer to be open to anonymous participants, but I'm comfortable with the caller policy.

16:47:28 [clp]

q+

16:47:29 [Peter]

Peter has joined #DNT

16:47:40 [bryan]

...we do want a dialog - this is part of a larger global debate

16:47:44 [aleecia_]

q?

16:47:59 [bryan]

... they may otherwise misconstrue developments

16:48:08 [aleecia_]

ack WileyS

16:48:14 [npdoty]

are there alternative ways for the WG to help inform the press, if not inviting them to meetings?

16:48:34 [bryan]

wileys: strongly disagree, all interactions over the last decade - they rarely have the background to interpret, and respond at the surface level

16:48:42 [jmayer]

The final part of my comment was: even if we think media coverage is worse, and even if we think there's a conversational chill (I disagree on both), we have to weigh that against the tremendous benefits of transparency.

16:48:59 [bryan]

... responding over time will be unlikely, so developing history is unlikely

16:49:05 [jmayer]

If the concern is accuracy, we can fix that - e.g., to join calls/meetings, you have to sit through a background briefing.

16:49:06 [JC]

+1

16:49:11 [bryan]

.. a press day or event would be better

16:49:23 [aleecia_]

ack bryan

16:49:24 [bryan]

... seeing a small sliver of the group's work would be bad

16:49:24 [johnsimpson]

we could schedule a news conference after the F2F

16:49:43 [npdoty]

press day or press event suggestion is an interesting possibility

16:49:52 [aleecia_]

ack clp

16:50:07 [bryan]

presence of press would be a serious impediment from my perspective

16:50:10 [jchester2]

I think we should do press briefing before Seattle meeting begins

16:50:54 [jmayer]

Let's recall that 1) there's already going to be press coverage, and 2) in the absence of being in the room, the press has to rely on scattered second-hand accounts and transcripts.

16:51:04 [johnsimpson]

press is increasingly interested and we will be getting more and more coverage. it would help us to make everything as transparent as possible

16:51:05 [bryan]

clp: more openess on transcripts and putting results out for review would be an improvement

16:51:11 [clp_]

I suggested a formal "press recording event" regularly and transcripts etc.

16:51:31 [WileyS]

Jonathan, I agree in the interest and believe a more controlled outreach will meet their needs and our needs at the same time.

16:51:37 [bryan]

aleecia: are there ways that we can review the concerns around press

16:52:24 [bryan]

... suggest to take as a thread for the next week to brainstorm ways to make this work or not, and overhead of taking time to brief the press

16:52:25 [npdoty]

"saying that someone should brief the press is lovely" but people are busy

16:52:43 [jmayer]

Another option: no quoting from live meetings/calls.

16:52:52 [clp_]

+1

16:52:54 [bryan]

... unless we have concrete results in the discussion we will continue the current policy

16:52:59 [JC]

+1

16:53:08 [jmayer]

sure

16:53:10 [WileyS]

Not allowing them on calls or in live meetings meets the same outcome :-)

16:53:19 [bryan]

... jmayer can start the ball rolling?

16:53:24 [WileyS]

aka - "no quoting"

16:53:30 [npdoty]

Zakim, take up agendum 6

16:53:30 [Zakim]

agendum 6. "Open issues with no associated actions to draft text: ISSUE-65, ISSUE-97, ISSUE-99" taken up [from aleecia_]

16:53:38 [jmayer]

Though I'm not comfortable with this framing: "no agreement = current policy."

16:53:39 [aleecia_]

ISSUE-65, How does logged in and logged out state work

16:53:41 [bryan]

topic: issues with no actions against them

16:53:50 [ifette]

ISSUE-65?

16:53:50 [trackbot]

ISSUE-65 -- How does logged in and logged out state work -- open

16:53:50 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/65

16:54:00 [justin]

+q

16:54:01 [bryan]

topic: issue 65

16:54:02 [tl]

+q

16:54:25 [bryan]

... we had two competing proposals expected from the DC meeting

16:54:26 [aleecia_]

ack justin

16:54:28 [WileyS]

Logged-in/logged-out = out-of-band consent (working on that draft language)

16:54:30 [jmayer]

WileyS, press in the room but no quoting = can still report on proposals, votes.

16:54:46 [JC]

Disagree

16:54:48 [WileyS]

Jonathan, they can do the same through a more controlled press outreach engagement

16:54:54 [bryan]

justin: saw it different that there would not need to be separate rules per logged in/out state

16:55:06 [bryan]

aleecia: not my understanding

16:55:07 [npdoty]

ack JC

16:55:13 [npdoty]

JC?

16:55:16 [jmayer]

WileyS, that won't allow them to as deeply understand or as faithfully report the group's work.

16:55:19 [aleecia_]

ack tl

16:55:21 [JC]

can you hear me

16:55:27 [bryan]

tl: concur with justin

16:55:28 [npdoty]

JC, no we can't hear you

16:55:32 [JC]

I'll reset

16:55:36 [Zakim]

-[Microsoft]

16:55:50 [bryan]

aleecia: will go thru the minutes to verify that happened

16:55:52 [aleecia_]

ISSUE-97, Re-direction, shortened URLs, click analytics

16:55:57 [bryan]

topic: issue 97

16:55:59 [WileyS]

If we setup the press outreach event appropriately they will reach "deep understanding" - or at least as much as any reporter will ever reach in this type of discussion.

16:56:01 [Zakim]

+[Microsoft]

16:56:04 [ifette]

ISSUE-97?

16:56:04 [trackbot]

ISSUE-97 -- Re-direction, shortened URLs, click analytics -- what kind of tracking is this? -- open

16:56:04 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/97

16:56:08 [JC]

+q

16:56:20 [bryan]

... we are getting to the point of knowing what we are doing with URL shorteners

16:56:22 [justin]

I'm willing to take it as an action item.

16:56:26 [aleecia_]

ack JC

16:56:41 [jmayer]

Shane, press conference != attendance. That's not up for debate.

16:56:45 [tl]

+q

16:56:50 [Zakim]

-dsriedel

16:56:56 [jmayer]

Have to drop off, my thoughts on out-of-band consent are on the list.

16:57:02 [Zakim]

-jmayer

16:57:19 [bryan]

jc: login initiates a connection with a service - thus there should be a difference. any agreements made when logged in are deactivated when logged out

16:57:23 [tl]

-q

16:57:41 [bryan]

aleecia: looking for actions on this - will review the minutes to see

16:57:43 [npdoty]

JC, do we need an action item for you to write that up? or is that an existing proposal?

16:57:48 [bryan]

topic: issue 97

16:57:57 [JC]

There should be an existing proposal

16:57:58 [justin]

Me

16:57:59 [WileyS]

Jonathan, I thought we were debating press attendance. Now I'm lost. I'm proposing a press outreach as a substitute for direct press participation. For me, press attendence is a non-starter.

16:58:06 [bryan]

aleecia: looking for someone to take an action to draft text

16:58:12 [JC]

i7

16:58:16 [JC]

97

16:58:23 [justin]

I have drafted language on this issue before, but I'll recirculate.

16:58:31 [fielding]

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/97

16:58:46 [aleecia_]

ISSUE-99, How does DNT work with identity providers?

16:58:47 [bryan]

... please link to the language in the issue 97

16:58:54 [bryan]

topic: issue 99

16:59:09 [fielding]

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/99

16:59:31 [bryan]

... no text yet. the idea is if you use oauth, what does that imply

16:59:35 [npdoty]

aleecia: if you use OAuth, now what?

16:59:40 [justin]

+q

16:59:43 [WileyS]

I'll take it

16:59:44 [ifette]

i can draft text

16:59:45 [tl]

+q

16:59:47 [aleecia_]

ack justin

16:59:49 [bryan]

is that not the same as logged in / out issue?

16:59:51 [WileyS]

We had draft text initially

16:59:53 [hwest]

I think this could be addressed int he logged in section

17:00:02 [jchester2]

I agree it's important and would be happy to help

17:00:08 [bryan]

justin: this is an important issue, willing to work on this

17:00:18 [tl]

-q

17:00:20 [JC]

I feel this is slightly different from logged in state

17:00:21 [WileyS]

For authentication event, 1st party. All downstream activity is 3rd party. Okay?

17:00:24 [fielding]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Apr/0112.html

17:00:24 [ifette]

sure

17:00:27 [WileyS]

Sure

17:00:34 [bryan]

aleecia: shane take the lead and work with ian and justin

17:00:45 [npdoty]

WileyS, that sounds promising

17:00:46 [Zakim]

-vinay

17:00:47 [JC]

What if auth service stores profiel as well?

17:00:52 [aleecia_]

Ian's text for ACTION-190 and ISSUE-142, Allowed uses of protocol data in first N weeks.

17:00:55 [bryan]

topic: Ian's text for action 190 issue 142

17:01:02 [aleecia_]

Protocol data, meaning data that is transmitted by a user agent, such as a web browser, in the process of requesting content from a provider, explicitly including items such as IP addresses, cookies, and request URIs, MAY be stored for a period of 6 weeks in a form that might not otherwise satisfy the requirements of this specification. For instance, the data may not yet be reduced to the subset of information allowed to be retained for permitted uses (such as

17:01:03 [aleecia_]

fraud detection), and technical controls limiting access to the data for permitted uses may not be in place on things like raw logs data sitting on servers waiting for processing and aggregation into a centralized logs storage service.

17:01:04 [aleecia_]

Within this six week period, a data collector MUST NOT share data with other parties in a manner that would be prohibited outside of the six week period. Similarly, a data collector MUST NOT use the data to build any profile, or associate the data to any profile, of a user used for purposes other than would be allowed outside of the the six week period. As examples, a data collector MAY use the raw data within a six week period to debug their system, a data

17:01:07 [aleecia_]

collector MAY use the raw data within the six week period to build a profile of a user fraudulently or maliciously accessing the system for purposes such as blocking access to the system by that user, but the data collector MUST NOT build a profile to serve targeted advertisements based on the user's past six weeks of browsing activity.

17:01:11 [aleecia_]

After the six week period has passed, all other requirements of the DNT specification apply.

17:01:26 [ifette]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012May/0109.html

17:01:34 [bryan]

... is this something we are ready to adopt

17:01:58 [tl]

r-

17:02:01 [WileyS]

+q

17:02:01 [tl]

+q

17:02:07 [bryan]

... DC consensus was to have some timeline - not a major problem

17:02:08 [aleecia_]

ack WileyS

17:02:39 [Zakim]

-EricHeath

17:03:13 [bryan]

wileys: dont understand re protocol data from a logging perspective - this was IMO associated with unlinkable data. if we combine with permitted uses, it contradicts with the nature of this data as unlinkable.

17:03:39 [fielding]

q+

17:03:39 [aleecia_]

ack tl

17:03:39 [bryan]

aleecia: also not expecting to see cookies as part of this proposal

17:03:43 [ifette]

q+

17:03:55 [npdoty]

I thought this wasn't about unlinkable data, just that there's an additional allowance for short-term logged data of most kinds

17:04:00 [bryan]

tl: this should not be linked to permitted uses and unlinkable data

17:04:27 [bryan]

... only when logged data is processed do you need to limit the data stored

17:04:47 [bryan]

... it should be no ability to use data until the data is in the form allowed to be stored

17:05:00 [bryan]

... should not put a time limit on that

17:05:03 [aleecia_]

ack fielding

17:05:07 [bilcorry]

What constitutes 'process'?

17:05:38 [tl]

bilcorry: The thing that you do to change the logs into the thing that you're allowed to retain.

17:05:39 [bryan]

fielding: similar to that, the goal is to allow storage of unprocessed log data - but dont understand it disappearing as soon as touched

17:05:43 [johnsimpson]

what is included in protocol data?

17:05:51 [npdoty]

s/bilcorry:/bilcorry,/

17:06:17 [bryan]

... e.g. raw log data is stored and fraud is discovered, then extraction should be possible without affecting other data in the log

17:06:25 [npdoty]

johnsimpson, there have been some different definitions -- the main question being whether cookie data is logged

17:06:25 [aleecia_]

q?

17:06:33 [bryan]

aleecia: think you are close to agreement with tom

17:06:50 [johnsimpson]

that's the concern whether cookies are included or not...

17:07:06 [aleecia_]

ack ifette

17:07:06 [fielding]

fancy finger work, at least

17:07:07 [Chris_IAB]

does fraud include security?

17:07:14 [bryan]

tl: if you are storing log files, and need to use the log for a fraud use, then doing so it OK but we need to avoid it being a loophole

17:08:01 [bryan]

ifette: we want DNT protection to be proportionate to the risk. we dont want to force data logs to force you though hoops

17:08:05 [bilcorry]

tl, what if logs are searchable via Splunk? Or 500 errors are pulled out for monitoring of problems?

17:08:43 [bryan]

... for various purposes e.g. unique user counts, the data should be able to be processed, and requires the original logs

17:08:44 [bilcorry]

tl, I'm thinking of Apache logs in particular, not application logs

17:08:54 [fielding]

could we exclude aggregate processing?

17:08:59 [tl]

+q

17:09:12 [bryan]

... we should make it clear that this is not carte blanche, but we need to leave it open for that period

17:09:41 [bryan]

... suprised at toms suggestion on further data retention after 6 weeks, as users may not like that

17:09:48 [aleecia_]

q?

17:09:50 [aleecia_]

ack tl

17:09:56 [Chris_IAB]

I'm not sure we should time limit use of (log) data for legitimate fraud detection and prevention and for legitimate consumer protection purposes (i.e. pattern analysis)

17:10:07 [bryan]

... rather keep it simple and say must be in compliance after 6 weeks

17:10:20 [ifette]

q+

17:10:22 [robsherman]

+q

17:10:34 [aleecia_]

ack ifette

17:10:42 [bryan]

tl: orgs would even less like to store data that they can use for two years. it is in their interest to process the data

17:11:03 [tl]

+q

17:11:16 [aleecia_]

ack robsherman

17:11:26 [bryan]

ifette: processing is not a single event, there might be multiple dips to process it. we should not force specific processes in that 6 week period

17:11:42 [Zakim]

-Chapell

17:11:52 [bryan]

robsherman: what do we mean when we say process?

17:12:45 [aleecia_]

ack tl

17:13:01 [bryan]

... we need to clarify that logs are needed for a variety of purposes, and that processing needs to be flexibly supported in the 6 week period

17:13:02 [Zakim]

+??P13

17:13:15 [npdoty]

Zakim, mute ??P13

17:13:15 [Zakim]

??P13 should now be muted

17:13:21 [Zakim]

-enewland.a

17:13:36 [bryan]

tl: not comfortable with the 6 week period - rather create a system that encourages logs to be dealt with promptly

17:13:57 [ifette]

who is disagreeing beyond just tom>

17:13:58 [ifette]

?

17:13:58 [bryan]

aleecia: thought we wre closer to agreement than we appear now

17:14:02 [ifette]

q+

17:14:11 [Chapell]

sorry, nick - calling from skype

17:14:15 [Chapell]

muted myself

17:14:23 [bilcorry]

Data retention is a regulatory issue in some jurisdictions. Having to drop information ASAP may conflict with requirements to retain data.

17:14:26 [ifette]

q+ to ask who is diagreeing beyond just tom? it seems like we are very close to consensus

17:14:32 [aleecia_]

ack ifette

17:14:32 [Zakim]

ifette, you wanted to ask who is diagreeing beyond just tom? it seems like we are very close to consensus

17:14:36 [bryan]

... we have issue now with a log of data stored with few restrictions, and need to go down a longer path

17:15:01 [bryan]

ifette: we seem to be diverging on this call, and were closer before.

17:15:21 [ifette]

that's not an accurate scribing

17:15:28 [ifette]

i think we are not diverging on this call

17:15:37 [ifette]

i think we are very close, minus tom, closer even than we were in dc

17:15:39 [justin]

I would like some more time to look at it. I haven't reviewed yet today.

17:15:45 [bryan]

aleecia: straw poll on ian's proposed text or do we need to continue discussing

17:15:49 [ifette]

justin, it's been more than 1 week

17:15:50 [ifette]

+1

17:15:51 [aleecia_]

+1 for Ian's text now -

17:16:02 [hwest]

+1

17:16:04 [ifette]

(or the general concept)

17:16:09 [Chapell]

+1

17:16:11 [JC]

+1

17:16:13 [robsherman]

+1

17:16:14 [fielding]

+0 (not comfortable, but happy to see it in doc)

17:16:16 [alex]

+1

17:16:26 [bryan]

+1 as compared to the alternative

17:16:29 [Chris_IAB]

+1 with some modification of no time limit

17:16:29 [tl]

Whoa, "the general concept" ?

17:16:34 [aleecia_]

-1 to substantially different

17:16:38 [Lia]

+1

17:16:40 [Chris_IAB]

no time limit for proper use

17:16:43 [WileyS]

-1 Remove this text completely or add it as a permitted use

17:16:47 [johnsimpson]

still considering text

17:16:54 [rvaneijk]

-1 no time limit but normative tekst to keep it to absolute minimum

17:16:56 [bryan]

aleecia: otherwise enter a -1 if we need to do something very different

17:16:59 [vincent_]

-1

17:16:59 [clp_]

Say again choices

17:17:00 [justin]

-1 for now

17:17:01 [tl]

I think we agree on the "general concept", we just need to get the details right!

17:17:05 [jchester2]

-1

17:17:19 [clp_]

-1

17:17:36 [Chris_IAB]

Hey all, to clarify something: "where the raw logging events are put directly into the database", In the case of logging into a database, where the raw log files are put directly into a database, when would the "process" event happen? At log, or at a later date?

17:17:38 [tl]

I neither agree with Ian's proposal nor think we need something substantially different!

17:17:40 [ifette]

i hear justin saying "I haven't reviewed the text" and hten asking for something substantively different, that seems in conflict...

17:17:51 [tl]

Just *a little bit* different.

17:17:52 [rvaneijk]

yes

17:17:58 [bryan]

... what do non-supporters want: shane is concerned with effect on unlinkable data

17:18:12 [bryan]

... rob had a concern (did not capture)

17:18:29 [rvaneijk]

@bryan: no time limit but normative tekst to keep it to absolute minimum

17:18:35 [tl]

Ian, I think we can do this.

17:18:48 [ifette]

i had in my original proposal an attempt at some "prohibited uses" in the 6 weeks adn would be happy to take proposals for additional "prohibited uses"

17:18:49 [justin]

ifette, Sorry, just trying to indicate I don't feel comfortable signing on to this for now. I apologize that I just haven't been as focused on this issue, but it's an important deviation from where we all had been.

17:18:58 [bryan]

vincent: too vague so far - preferred the splitting of data based upon use, a specific set of data for a purpose

17:18:59 [ifette]

justin, that wouldn't be a -1 then :)

17:19:28 [bryan]

justin: not ready to vote, prefer to park for a week

17:19:41 [bryan]

jchester: need more time, another week

17:19:58 [johnsimpson]

same for me to review

17:20:11 [bryan]

clp: interested in making it larger, including more cases, more discussion

17:20:28 [clp_]

Sorry, didn't mean to stir the pot :(

17:20:38 [alex]

I thought we only close issues in ff meetings :-)

17:20:53 [tl]

kline plz.

17:20:59 [bryan]

aleecia: we need to close issues. looking at a big gulf between process once and enabling longer processing. shane's point is different also

17:21:19 [ifette]

(and there may be intermediate processed forms)

17:21:46 [bryan]

... tom please focus on uses and timelines for logged data - the goals dont appear far apart. we have a span of non-realtime use

17:22:07 [ifette]

happy to chat with tom, but would like to get forward progress

17:22:10 [bryan]

tl: need to talk to ian, to provide a more nuanced proposal

17:22:15 [ifette]

q+

17:22:20 [fielding]

q+

17:22:29 [aleecia_]

ack ifette

17:23:16 [bryan]

ifette: as example, 10K servers, each time the service is accessed IP address, cookies, and service asked for,

17:23:32 [bryan]

... very few minutes the logs are scaped and stored centrally for 6 weeks

17:23:41 [johnsimpson]

Is this protocol logs only of 3rd parties, right?

17:23:43 [bryan]

... at eh end of 6 weeks, the complete logs get dumped

17:24:10 [bryan]

... during the 6 weeks, a lot of analyses are run for various purposes

17:24:25 [bryan]

... some access control, but not claiming dnt compliance

17:24:59 [alex]

q?

17:25:04 [bryan]

... aggregate data is stored over the 6 weeks, based upon lod data that is complete some what processed but still available for the 6 weeks

17:25:49 [bryan]

... in the 6 week period the analyses are thus possible, and after 6 weeks the logs are dumped or put into a dnt-allowed form

17:26:09 [tl]

+q

17:26:27 [aleecia_]

ack fielding

17:26:37 [bryan]

... the intent was not to enable free use during the 6 weeks. just a grace period for existing practices without a highly complex locked down system

17:27:20 [bryan]

fielding: +1 to ian. have worked on log file analysis also. large companies process data similar to ian's description.

17:27:51 [bryan]

... we need to find a phrase where privacy concerns are identified without impacting ability to do reporting e.g. aggregate

17:27:52 [Zakim]

-??P13

17:27:52 [aleecia_]

ack tl

17:27:56 [WileyS]

Then this discussion should be moved under the "Aggregate Reporting" Permitted Use.

17:28:07 [aleecia_]

should it?

17:28:19 [bryan]

tl: counterpoint to ian's example, this is mostly about 3rd parties

17:28:41 [npdoty]

storage and processing for the purpose of aggregate reporting?

17:28:47 [justin]

Uh . . . it's about third parties.

17:28:47 [bryan]

ifette: this should apply to all parties

17:29:00 [bryan]

agree it's about 3rd parties only

17:29:02 [fielding]

that surprises me

17:29:05 [WileyS]

If the goal is to define the time period data may remain in raw form prior to aggregation, wouldn't that be the best place to have that discussion.

17:29:13 [Chris_PedigoOPA]

should be third parties only

17:29:25 [npdoty]

I also thought that this was only for third parties

17:29:33 [WileyS]

We've already agreed DNT generally only applies to 3rd parties.

17:29:35 [aleecia_]

Check the dlist threat

17:29:38 [fielding]

but third parties still need the same log windows for trend reports

17:29:40 [bryan]

tl: use-based restrictions vs time-based restrictions are better, as its harder to control use

17:29:51 [Zakim]

-jchester2

17:29:52 [justin]

I mean, the language can apply to first parties too, I really don't care, but it creates an exception to a prohibition that doesn't apply.

17:29:52 [Zakim]

-efelten

17:29:52 [Zakim]

-??P7

17:29:54 [aleecia_]

We can discuss if it should change, but the proposal itself was for all

17:30:05 [rvaneijk]

@tl, if you go for used based limitation, please include reasonable technical and organizational safeguards. (...stated in DC)

17:30:16 [justin]

But I'll look at the mailing list.

17:30:21 [bryan]

... leaving all the data around makes it difficult to use-based retention

17:30:26 [Chris_PedigoOPA]

let's discuss that this should apply to only 3rd parties

17:30:52 [ifette]

it would be nice to have concrete next steps

17:30:57 [bryan]

aleecia: interesting discussion re who this applies to (all parties?)

17:31:00 [ifette]

we've had text make it into teh draft with a heck of a lot less consensus than this oen has

17:31:01 [bryan]

straw poll?

17:31:03 [ifette]

s/oen/one

17:31:09 [ifette]

q+

17:31:21 [aleecia_]

ack ifette

17:31:25 [bryan]

aleecia: like to continue and close this discussion

17:31:28 [tl]

ifette: I'm messaging you privately to find a time to talk.

17:31:33 [Chris_IAB]

If we publish a time limit on this use case (fraud/security), the fraudsters/nefarious actors will use that information to their benefit, to remain undiscoverable

17:31:34 [laurengelman]

i am leaving.

17:31:40 [bryan]

ifette: need to know what it takes to get this in

17:32:00 [bryan]

... hearing one objection, others need more time

17:32:20 [tl]

ifette: Ping?

17:32:34 [bryan]

aleecia: we are looking for stronger consensus on the compliance document than the TPE

17:32:44 [npdoty]

is the request just that we could put this in the document before we come to consensus?

17:32:53 [tl]

That scribing was not accurate.

17:33:01 [bryan]

... looking for mail list discussion on whether this applies to 1st or 3rd parties

17:33:09 [justin]

There really isn't an operative compliance doc at the moment --- the current text is outdated. There are too many open issues in play.

17:33:10 [npdoty]

Chris_IAB, I don't think we're currently discussing the fraud/security exception

17:33:14 [Zakim]

-??P5

17:33:15 [Zakim]

- +1.781.472.aahh

17:33:15 [Zakim]

-Lia

17:33:15 [Zakim]

-alex.a

17:33:16 [Zakim]

-vincent_

17:33:16 [Zakim]

-bilcorry

17:33:16 [Zakim]

-johnsimpson

17:33:17 [bryan]

... matthias will chair the next call

17:33:18 [Zakim]

-hwest

17:33:20 [Zakim]

-tedleung

17:33:22 [Zakim]

-enewland

17:33:24 [johnsimpson]

johnsimpson has left #dnt

17:33:25 [Zakim]

-ifette

17:33:26 [Zakim]

-aleecia

17:33:28 [Zakim]

-eberkower

17:33:29 [rvaneijk]

rvaneijk has left #dnt

17:33:30 [Zakim]

-robsherman

17:33:32 [Zakim]

-alex

17:33:34 [Zakim]

-??P75

17:33:36 [clp_]

Bye all *waves*

17:33:36 [npdoty]

Zakim, list attendees

17:33:36 [Zakim]

-[Mozilla]

17:33:38 [Zakim]

-AClearwater

17:33:40 [Zakim]

-[Microsoft]

17:33:42 [Zakim]

- +1.203.484.aaff

17:33:44 [Zakim]

-BrendanIAB

17:33:46 [Zakim]

-bryan

17:33:48 [Zakim]

-Chris_PedigoOPA

17:33:51 [Zakim]

-WileyS

17:33:53 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been aleecia, +1.609.258.aaaa, efelten, schunter, AClearwater, +1.316.514.aabb, rvaneijk, npdoty, johnsimpson, jchester2, +1.650.810.aacc, tl,

17:33:55 [tl]

s/"aleecia: we are looking for stronger consensus on the compliance document than the TPE"/"aleecia: on the TPE editors put in rough consensus then listen for screams, on TCS editors only enter text if they don't think they'll hear any"

17:33:56 [Zakim]

... BrendanIAB, eberkower, Lia, bryan, dsriedel, EricHeath, alex, sidstamm, enewland, +1.202.326.aadd, [Microsoft], fielding, vinay, ifette, [FTC], +1.212.664.aaee,

17:33:56 [clp_]

Remember my offer of help Allecia have a lot of time this spring and summer after my move to CT. Au revoir.

17:33:58 [Zakim]

... +1.203.484.aaff, +40.72.321.aagg, jmayer, tedleung, Ionel, hwest, +1.781.472.aahh, bilcorry, WileyS, Chapell, +1.202.744.aaii, +1.202.370.aajj, robsherman, Chris_PedigoOPA,

17:34:02 [Zakim]

... [Mozilla], vincent_

17:34:03 [Zakim]

-rvaneijk

17:34:05 [Zakim]

-schunter

17:34:09 [Zakim]

-npdoty

17:34:16 [robsherman]

robsherman has joined #dnt

17:34:18 [clp]

bye

17:34:23 [bryan]

please correct the scribing if inaccurate... thanks

17:34:23 [ifette]

rrasagent, please draft minutes

17:34:26 [Zakim]

- +1.212.664.aaee

17:34:28 [fielding]

tl, thanks for that correction ;-)

17:34:30 [aleecia_]

To add to bryan's summary: we're not looking for "stronger" consensus in one document or another. It is a question of when editors put text into the drafts

17:34:37 [ifette]

rrsagent, please draft the minutes

17:34:37 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/09-dnt-minutes.html ifette

17:34:41 [ifette]

rrsagent, make logs member

17:34:46 [npdoty]

rrsagent, make logs public

17:34:53 [ifette]

public?

17:34:57 [ifette]

we haven't approved them yet

17:35:00 [ifette]

why are they public>

17:35:17 [npdoty]

we've always made them public

17:35:28 [ifette]

in previous groups i've been in, they've been member until people get a chance to review the minutes

17:35:28 [tl]

Don't we do this every week>

17:35:30 [ifette]

and correct

17:35:37 [ifette]

in the past, i'd been asking rrsagent to make them member

17:35:48 [fielding]

ifette, because there are many non-members in the group

17:35:54 [ifette]

especially given that multiple people have on irc stated there are problems with the minutes

17:36:15 [Zakim]

-fielding

17:36:17 [Zakim]

-[Mozilla.a]

17:36:18 [Zakim]

-[FTC]

17:36:20 [ifette]

fielding, observers are considered 'members' for this purpose iirc

17:36:37 [ifette]

they still have access to the 'protected' items

17:36:45 [npdoty]

ifette, we have several non-Member Invited Experts

17:36:48 [fielding]

are they? I thought that just set the access control policy to the member ACL

17:36:52 [ifette]

and they should ahve access even if it's member

17:37:06 [ifette]

doesn't member include invited experts

17:37:11 [ifette]

they are members of the group

17:37:15 [npdoty]

but we also generally make the minutes public originally, with a big DRAFT heading

17:37:15 [ifette]

which i thought is what the member acl referred to

17:37:25 [fielding]

they are members of the group, but not members of W3C

17:37:28 [npdoty]

our Invited Experts don't have access to Member-confidential data

17:37:33 [ifette]

hmm, ok

17:37:56 [ifette]

it would be preferable, IMO, if we had a setting where members of the group (incl. invited experts present on the call) could review the minutes before they were made public

17:38:04 [ifette]

that's how previous W3C groups I've participate din ahve operated

17:38:11 [ifette]

especially given our concerns on today's call around e.g. press

17:38:17 [ifette]

i'm not thrilled with inaccurate minutes getting posted

17:38:28 [npdoty]

that isn't how we've operated, but feel free to follow up with the chairs

17:41:17 [Zakim]

disconnecting the lone participant, ??P12, in T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM

17:41:18 [Zakim]

T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended

17:41:18 [Zakim]

Attendees were aleecia, +1.609.258.aaaa, efelten, schunter, AClearwater, +1.316.514.aabb, rvaneijk, npdoty, johnsimpson, jchester2, +1.650.810.aacc, tl, BrendanIAB, eberkower, Lia,

17:41:18 [Zakim]

... bryan, dsriedel, EricHeath, alex, sidstamm, enewland, +1.202.326.aadd, [Microsoft], fielding, vinay, ifette, [FTC], +1.212.664.aaee, +1.203.484.aaff, +40.72.321.aagg, jmayer,

17:41:20 [Zakim]

... tedleung, Ionel, hwest, +1.781.472.aahh, bilcorry, WileyS, Chapell, +1.202.744.aaii, +1.202.370.aajj, robsherman, Chris_PedigoOPA, [Mozilla], vincent_

17:42:55 [robsherman]

robsherman has left #dnt

17:43:05 [tedleung]

tedleung has left #dnt

18:02:50 [ifette]

ifette has joined #dnt

19:50:40 [aleecia]

aleecia has joined #dnt

22:09:33 [schunter]

schunter has joined #dnt