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-180	open	Provide 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