15:35:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:35:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/08/08-dnt-irc
15:35:51 <aleecia> Zakim, this will be dnt
15:35:51 <Zakim> ok, aleecia; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 25 minutes
15:35:59 <aleecia> chair: aleecia
15:36:05 <aleecia> regrets+ Susan
15:36:14 <aleecia> rrsagent, make logs public
15:36:17 <aleecia> agenda?
15:36:29 <aleecia> zakim, clear agenda
15:36:29 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:36:48 <aleecia> agenda+ Selection of scribe
15:37:05 <aleecia> agenda+ Review of overdue action items:  http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
15:37:51 <aleecia> agenda+ Quick check that callers are identified
15:38:02 <aleecia> agenda+ Update on face-to-face meeting
15:39:25 <aleecia> agenda+ Compliance draft, sections 5 & 6: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#user-agent-compliance
15:39:37 <aleecia> agenda+ Polling on choices offered by UA
15:39:52 <aleecia> agenda+ A few issues that are candidates to close, plus continuation of the call from last week. 
15:40:06 <aleecia> agenda+ Announce next meeting & adjourn
15:47:05 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
15:47:42 <npdoty> Zakim, code?
15:47:42 <Zakim> the conference code is 87225 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), npdoty
15:47:48 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:47:55 <Zakim> +npdoty
15:48:09 <npdoty> rrsagent, make logs public
15:48:35 <npdoty> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Aug/0013.html
15:48:44 <npdoty> chair: aleecia
15:48:51 <npdoty> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group teleconference
15:48:56 <aleecia> done, nick
15:49:08 <aleecia> agenda?
15:49:46 <npdoty> regrets+ susanisrael
15:49:47 <aleecia> why that didn't over-write the agenda already there is a mystery, but a happy one
15:49:56 <aleecia> regrets?
15:50:05 <aleecia> zakim, regrets?
15:50:05 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, aleecia.
15:51:19 <aleecia> ah, so that's why I've struggled with it and given up.
15:53:39 <eberkower> eberkower has joined #dnt
15:54:04 <felten> felten has joined #dnt
15:54:53 <Zakim> + +1.646.654.aaaa
15:54:59 <eberkower> = eberkower
15:55:10 <eberkower> aaaa = eberkower
15:55:17 <npdoty> Zakim, aaaa is eberkower 
15:55:17 <Zakim> +eberkower; got it
15:55:38 <Zakim> +aleecia
15:55:42 <Chris_IAB> Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
15:55:42 <ifette> ifette has joined #dnt
15:56:12 <Zakim> +[Google]
15:56:18 <ifette> Zakim, google has ifette
15:56:18 <Zakim> +ifette; got it
15:56:22 <Zakim> +??P39
15:56:33 <Chris_IAB> just joined via Skype
15:56:35 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
15:56:41 <npdoty> Zakim, ??P39 is Chris_IAB 
15:56:41 <Zakim> +Chris_IAB; got it
15:56:48 <Zakim> + +1.609.310.aabb
15:56:59 <felten> Zakim, aabb is me
15:56:59 <Zakim> +felten; got it
15:57:14 <ifette> some days I feel like Don Quixote...
15:57:25 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
15:57:50 <ifette> or maybe Sancho, I'm not sure
15:57:58 <BrendanIAB> BrendanIAB has joined #dnt
15:58:01 <WileyS> WileyS has joined #DNT
15:58:02 <Zakim> + +1.714.852.aacc
15:58:05 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
15:58:21 <fielding> Zakim, aacc is fielding
15:58:21 <Zakim> +fielding; got it
15:58:43 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:58:46 <Joanne> Joanne has joined #DNT
15:59:00 <ifette> (nielsen)
15:59:15 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
15:59:20 <BrendanIAB> Zakim, IPCaller is probably BrendanIAB
15:59:20 <Zakim> +BrendanIAB?; got it
15:59:23 <adrianba> zakim, [Microsoft] is me
15:59:23 <Zakim> +adrianba; got it
15:59:24 <robsherman> robsherman has joined #dnt
15:59:28 <npdoty> Zakim, [GVoice] is Dabiano_Nielsen
15:59:28 <Zakim> +Dabiano_Nielsen; got it
15:59:35 <Zakim> + +1.916.641.aadd
15:59:48 <samsilberman> samsilberman has joined #dnt
15:59:49 <Zakim> + +1.650.308.aaee
15:59:52 <cblouch> cblouch has joined #dnt
15:59:55 <robsherman> zakim, aaee is robsherman
15:59:55 <Zakim> +robsherman; got it
15:59:56 <Joanne> Zakim, aadd is Joanne
15:59:56 <Zakim> +Joanne; got it
16:00:11 <Zakim> + +1.540.822.aaff
16:00:26 <Zakim> +WileyS
16:00:39 <Zakim> +rvaneijk
16:00:43 <amyc> amyc has joined #dnt
16:00:52 <Zakim> + +1.202.345.aagg
16:01:02 <aleecia> agenda?
16:01:10 <jeffwilson> jeffwilson has joined #dnt
16:01:14 <Zakim> +samsilberman
16:01:17 <Zakim> +jeffwilson
16:01:20 <damiano> damiano has joined #dnt
16:01:25 <Lia> Lia has joined #dnt
16:01:27 <justin_> justin_ has joined #dnt
16:01:31 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:01:36 <James_IRC_only> James_IRC_only has joined #dnt
16:01:47 <Zakim> +cblouch
16:01:56 <npdoty> Zakim, aaff is RichardWeaver
16:01:56 <Zakim> +RichardWeaver; got it
16:01:59 <Zakim> +justin_
16:02:19 <AnnaLong> AnnaLong has joined #dnt
16:02:23 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
16:02:34 <hwest> hwest has joined #dnt
16:02:43 <alex> alex has joined #dnt
16:02:45 <Zakim> +Cyril_Concolato
16:02:45 <Zakim> + +1.202.695.aahh
16:02:49 <vinay> vinay has joined #dnt
16:02:53 <vincent> sure
16:02:55 <Lia> Zakim, aahh is me
16:02:55 <Zakim> +Lia; got it
16:02:56 <Zakim> + +1.202.642.aaii
16:03:03 <Zakim> +tl
16:03:05 <npdoty> scribenick: vincent
16:03:05 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:03:07 <Zakim> +hwest
16:03:28 <aleecia>  http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
16:03:28 <vincent> zakim, Cyril_Concolato is vincent
16:03:28 <Zakim> +vincent; got it
16:03:32 <BerinSzoka> BerinSzoka has joined #dnt
16:03:35 <ifette> Zakim, take up agendum 2
16:03:36 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Review of overdue action items:  http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner" taken up [from aleecia]
16:03:53 <tl> tl has joined #dnt
16:03:53 <npdoty> action-196?
16:03:53 <trackbot> ACTION-196 -- Justin Brookman to draft text on whether url shorteners are first or third parties -- due 2012-08-03 -- OPEN
16:03:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/196
16:03:56 <Zakim> +alex
16:04:20 <vincent> aleecia: move action 196 move to pending review correct?
16:04:22 <tl> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:22 <Zakim> On the phone I see npdoty, eberkower, aleecia, [Google], Chris_IAB, felten, fielding, Dabiano_Nielsen, BrendanIAB?, adrianba, Joanne, robsherman, RichardWeaver, WileyS, rvaneijk,
16:04:25 <Zakim> ... +1.202.345.aagg, samsilberman, jeffwilson, [Microsoft], cblouch, justin_, vincent, Lia, +1.202.642.aaii, tl, hwest, alex
16:04:25 <Zakim> [Google] has ifette
16:04:32 <Zakim> + +1.919.388.aajj
16:04:33 <vincent> justin: added a couple of sentence should wait for next week
16:04:33 <Zakim> +johnsimpson
16:04:51 <vincent> aleecia: action 212 on ifette 
16:05:07 <vincent> ifette: its more a UI question item, not agreement yet within Google
16:05:17 <vincent> aleecia: someone would like to take this on
16:05:22 <AnnaLong> zakim, aajj is AnnaLong
16:05:22 <Zakim> +AnnaLong; got it
16:05:27 <vincent> ... no voluter, close this action
16:05:35 <jmayer> jmayer has joined #dnt
16:05:38 <vincent> aleecia: action 222 also on ifette 
16:05:58 <vincent> ifette: 222 has been emailed to the list, so is 201
16:06:02 <Zakim> +jmayer
16:06:18 <vincent> ... moved to pending review
16:06:32 <Zakim> +ChrisPedigoOPA
16:06:37 <kj> kj has joined #dnt
16:06:38 <ChrisPedigoOPA> ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:06:45 <Chris_IAB> Hi Aleecia, I think we'd like to keep 212 open
16:06:49 <aleecia> 212 -> close; 222-> pending review, 201 -> pending review, 200 -> comments on dlist, +1 week.
16:07:06 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #dnt
16:07:20 <Chris_IAB> Brendan and I will volunteer
16:07:25 <ChrisPedigoOPA> zakim, who is on the call?
16:07:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see npdoty, eberkower, aleecia, [Google], Chris_IAB, felten, fielding, Dabiano_Nielsen, BrendanIAB?, adrianba, Joanne, robsherman, RichardWeaver, WileyS, rvaneijk,
16:07:25 <Zakim> ... +1.202.345.aagg, samsilberman, jeffwilson, [Microsoft], cblouch, justin_, vincent, Lia, +1.202.642.aaii, tl, hwest, alex, AnnaLong, johnsimpson, jmayer, ChrisPedigoOPA
16:07:25 <Zakim> [Google] has ifette
16:07:29 <BerinSzoka> Zakim, aaii is BerinSzoka
16:07:30 <Zakim> +BerinSzoka; got it
16:07:42 <bilcorry> bilcorry has joined #dnt
16:07:50 <vincent> aleecia: chris, would someone would like to volunter on 212, IAB being not member you can not volunter
16:07:51 <Chris_IAB> I did sign the IP agreement, btw
16:07:59 <Zakim> +[Apple]
16:08:01 <dsinger> zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:08:01 <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
16:08:17 <Zakim> + +1.646.666.aakk
16:08:18 <JC> JC has joined #DNT
16:08:19 <Zakim> + +1.866.317.aall
16:08:26 <ifette> q+
16:08:34 <sidstamm> sidstamm has joined #dnt
16:08:34 <WileyS> I'll take it on
16:08:44 <npdoty> action-212?
16:08:46 <dsinger> action-212?
16:08:51 <bilcorry> Zakim, aall is me
16:08:51 <Zakim> +bilcorry; got it
16:08:52 <WileyS> Please assign 212 to me
16:08:57 <vincent> aleecia: resuming the situation on 212 which is more related to UI
16:08:59 <bilcorry> Zakim, mute me
16:08:59 <Zakim> bilcorry should now be muted
16:09:04 <Chapell> Chapell has joined #DNT
16:09:06 <tl> tl has joined #dnt
16:09:09 <ifette> q-
16:09:25 <Chris_IAB> regarding my/our "invited expert" status, I have submitted several inquiries that have not been replied to... status?
16:09:26 <WileyS> Principle based approach - not prescriptive UI directions :-)
16:09:26 <ifette> ACTION-212 on shane
16:09:35 <WileyS> 2 weeks please
16:09:38 <dsriedel> dsriedel has joined #dnt
16:09:38 <fielding> I am trying to do the updates online
16:09:43 <justin_> WileyS, didn't you already draft text on this?  I added language based on your proposal to the new User Agent Compliance section.
16:09:52 <cOlsen> cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:09:54 <BrianH> BrianH has joined #dnt
16:09:57 <vincent> action-214?
16:10:03 <JC> I'm having trouble dialing in
16:10:11 <WileyS> Justin, yes - I'm going to revisit it to make sure its well structured enough
16:10:22 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:10:22 <sidstamm> JC, me too
16:10:30 <ifette> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:10:32 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: robsherman (15%)
16:10:33 <vincent> aleecia: chris, action 229
16:10:43 <Zakim> ifette, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: aleecia (5%), robsherman (20%)
16:10:51 <justin_> WileyS, yes, this could be fleshed out a bit more: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#user-agent-compliance
16:10:53 <npdoty> JC, sidstamm you can try *0 to talk to someone and ask for 87225
16:11:01 <vincent> Chris: i need a little bit ore time to get feedback, many people out of town
16:11:14 <sidstamm> npdoty, I get a busy tone on the main number and don't get the prompts
16:11:17 <vincent> aleecia:  postpon for two weeks
16:11:22 <npdoty> Zakim, mute robsherman 
16:11:22 <Zakim> robsherman should now be muted
16:11:29 <JC> +1
16:11:39 <vincent> aleecia: dsinger for action 227
16:11:46 <vincent> actuin-227?
16:11:56 <aleecia> 2 more days on 227
16:12:09 <trackbot> ACTION-212 -- Ian Fette to draft text on how user agents must obtain consent to turn on a DNT signal -- due 2012-07-25 -- CLOSED
16:12:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/212
16:12:16 <trackbot> ACTION-212 -- Ian Fette to draft text on how user agents must obtain consent to turn on a DNT signal -- due 2012-07-25 -- CLOSED
16:12:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/212
16:12:22 <trackbot> ACTION-214 -- Aleecia McDonald to issue a call for objections on symmetry/minimum number of choices -- due 2012-07-16 -- OPEN
16:12:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/214
16:12:29 <vincent> sorry did not get it
16:12:39 <aleecia> action-228, one more week
16:12:56 <vincent> aleecia: dwainberg for action 222
16:13:06 <adrianba> dsinger, i can also help with respec if you need
16:13:14 <vincent> ... final one hwest for action 225, alternative definition of third parties
16:13:26 <vincent> hwest: in progress, one week should be enough
16:13:26 <aleecia> one more week on action-225
16:13:37 <vincent> dsinger: can I talk about action 243
16:13:44 <susanisrael> susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:14:00 <susanisrael> susanisrael is on irc but not on call
16:14:03 <vincent> dsinger: the action was simple, change the TPE  doc
16:14:06 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
16:14:09 <JC> Just made it in
16:14:16 <jmayer> +q
16:14:27 <vincent> ... but the description about resource is about the resource is designed to be used
16:14:43 <vincent> ... the resource does not know if it is used in a third aprty context
16:14:45 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
16:14:51 <sidstamm> Zakim: Mozilla has sidstamm
16:14:53 <JC> +q
16:15:00 <JC> +q
16:15:05 <aleecia> ack jmayer
16:15:33 <tl> +q to say: Isn't a first party someone who believe with high confidence....?
16:15:41 <aleecia> close agendum 1
16:15:42 <fielding> no, that does not solve anything
16:16:05 <vincent> jmayer: the best way to solve the issue is to address that in the compliance doc
16:16:12 <fielding> +q
16:16:16 <aleecia> ack JC
16:16:31 <Zakim> +dsriedel
16:16:42 <johnsimpson> q?
16:16:44 <vincent> JC:  how do we deal aout the case of a third party ecomming a first party due to interaction
16:16:59 <Chris_IAB> JC, good point
16:17:03 <vincent> aleecia: not a problem touched by the problem we are toalking about
16:17:08 <felten> s/ecomming/becoming
16:17:12 <Zakim> + +aamm
16:17:16 <dsriedel> zakim, mute me
16:17:16 <Zakim> dsriedel should now be muted
16:17:21 <fielding> -q
16:17:41 <Zakim> + +1.202.326.aann
16:17:43 <pedermagee> pedermagee has joined #dnt
16:17:46 <aleecia> ack tl
16:17:46 <Zakim> tl, you wanted to say: Isn't a first party someone who believe with high confidence....?
16:17:49 <jmayer> If there's no additional HTTP traffic, then there's no new response header.  But there's also no new data collection.  So that's OK.
16:17:50 <npdoty> JC, I believe parties can send a different header once they've had that interaction making them first party, that's an advantage of a header
16:17:52 <vincent> aleecia: we're going to close the queue and see if someone volunter
16:18:09 <fielding> you want me to address Jonathan's point? It cannot be implemented -- simple enough
16:18:34 <vincent> tl: if you beleive that you resoure is used in a context that we described, you should know that you are a third aprty
16:18:39 <dsinger> "A first party is any party, in a specific network interaction, that can infer with high probability that the user knowingly and intentionally communicated with it. Otherwise, a party is a third party.
16:18:40 <dsinger> "
16:19:09 <vincent> fielding: if the origin serve can not know if it is a first or third party, it can not comply with the doc
16:19:25 <vincent> ... not going to write something in the TPE spec that can not be implemented
16:19:42 <vincent> aleecia: how do you expect a party will answer if it is a first or third party
16:19:54 <jmayer> I think Tom and I are suggesting essentially the same thing - solve this in Compliance.  We're pointing to two places in the text for doing that.
16:20:03 <vincent> fielding: a origin server will say if a resource belong to a first aprty context or third party context
16:20:13 <vincent> ... the context come from the UA not from the server
16:20:47 <jmayer> I'm not at all following what Roy's objection is.
16:21:10 <vincent> ... if the UA believe the resource is in a third party context and the server beielves it is in first party, that's an issue for the UA
16:21:21 <npdoty> so I think that's where we need text, that last part, fielding
16:21:47 <lgombos> lgombos has joined #dnt
16:21:54 <vincent> aleecia: if given party does not know what it is, it should behave as a third aprty
16:21:59 <jmayer> +q
16:22:02 <ifette> +1 fielding
16:22:05 <vincent> fielding: I'm objecting against that
16:22:27 <jmayer> Do we have agreement that this is a Compliance issue?
16:22:27 <amyc> aren't we just looking for volunteer for this action?
16:22:33 <vincent> aleecia: we have an issue around this agaisnt the compliance spec
16:23:00 <aleecia> ack jmayer
16:23:27 <npdoty> issue-60?
16:23:27 <trackbot> ISSUE-60 -- Will a recipient know if it itself is a 1st or 3rd party? -- open
16:23:27 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/60
16:23:32 <vincent> jmayer: I think we may have an agreement that it is a TPE issue
16:23:41 <jmayer> s/is/is not/
16:23:41 <justin_> Compliance issue, vincent
16:23:46 <vincent> aleecia: anyone interested in taking this action from dsinger 
16:24:27 <vincent> thx justin_ , jmayer 
16:24:38 <aleecia> zakim, who is on the call?
16:24:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see npdoty, eberkower, aleecia, [Google], Chris_IAB, felten, fielding, Dabiano_Nielsen, BrendanIAB?, adrianba, Joanne, robsherman (muted), RichardWeaver, WileyS,
16:24:41 <vincent> aleecia: checking unidentified caller
16:24:42 <Zakim> ... rvaneijk, +1.202.345.aagg, samsilberman, jeffwilson, [Microsoft], cblouch, justin_, vincent, Lia, BerinSzoka, tl, hwest, alex, AnnaLong, johnsimpson, jmayer, ChrisPedigoOPA,
16:24:42 <Zakim> ... [Apple], +1.646.666.aakk, bilcorry (muted), [Microsoft.a], [Mozilla], dsriedel (muted), +aamm, +1.202.326.aann
16:24:42 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:24:42 <Zakim> [Google] has ifette
16:24:55 <Chapell> zakam, aakk is Chapell
16:25:07 <Chapell> Zakim, AAKK is Chapell
16:25:07 <Zakim> +Chapell; got it
16:25:13 <damiano> I'm on Google talk, not sure what area code shows up
16:25:17 <npdoty> Zakim, aagg is Brian_Amazon
16:25:17 <Zakim> +Brian_Amazon; got it
16:25:31 <aleecia> agenda?
16:25:38 <npdoty> Zakim, aann is [FTC]
16:25:41 <Zakim> +[FTC]; got it
16:25:44 <ifette> Zakim, next agendum
16:25:44 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Quick check that callers are identified" taken up [from aleecia]
16:25:46 <npdoty> Zakim, [FTC] has Chris
16:25:47 <Zakim> +Chris; got it
16:25:49 <ifette> Zakim, next agendum
16:25:49 <Zakim> agendum 3 was just opened, ifette
16:25:52 <npdoty> Zakim, [FTC] has Peder
16:25:52 <Zakim> +Peder; got it
16:25:54 <ifette> Zakim, close agendum 3
16:25:54 <Zakim> agendum 3, Quick check that callers are identified, closed
16:25:55 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:25:57 <Zakim> 4. Update on face-to-face meeting [from aleecia]
16:25:57 <ifette> Zakim, take up agendum 4
16:25:58 <vincent> aleecia: F2F meeting we have an offer in Amsterdam from IAB europe
16:25:59 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Update on face-to-face meeting" taken up [from aleecia]
16:26:20 <vincent> ... right now we are looking at october 3,4 and 5th
16:26:29 <robsherman> robsherman has joined #dnt
16:26:51 <KevinT> KevinT has joined #dnt
16:27:00 <npdoty> October 3rd, 4th and 5th in Amsterdam
16:27:10 <vincent> ...if you are an observer you should not be booking yet
16:27:28 <vincent> ... we will have to check the room capacity
16:27:31 <Zakim> + +1.415.520.aaoo
16:27:40 <KevinT> zakim, aaoo is KevinT
16:27:40 <Zakim> +KevinT; got it
16:28:05 <ifette> q+
16:28:12 <vincent> ... currently most likely location, Amsterdam
16:28:13 <aleecia> ack ifette
16:28:21 <vincent> ifette: are those date pretty solid?
16:28:43 <vincent> ... probably going to miss that week
16:29:02 <npdoty> from Doodle, there are a couple people who will be a new conflict
16:29:03 <vincent> aleecia: should be confirmed soon (withn 24h?)
16:29:56 <vincent> aleecia: yes we are affected by it
16:30:32 <vincent> aleecia: thank you to Google and IAB europe for helping
16:30:45 <vincent> aleecia: now going to look at the editors draft
16:30:46 <aleecia> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#user-agent-compliance 
16:30:58 <vincent> ... specifically seciton 5 &6
16:31:34 <vincent> ... going to look for feedback about what you can't live with if we publish this as a working draft
16:31:34 <npdoty> Topic: Editors Draft towards Public Working Draft
16:32:02 <vincent> ... when there are options, we will keep the options available
16:32:23 <vincent> aleecia: section 6 has information about permitted uses based on the discussion in seattle
16:32:46 <vincent> .. looking for volunter to take the text and extend it within two weeks (should eb in spec language)
16:33:08 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:33:24 <npdoty> q+
16:33:26 <WileyS> Aleecia - I thought our draft was already incorporated into the C&S doc?
16:33:34 <WileyS> Why are we doing this again?
16:33:38 <fielding> earthquake
16:33:39 <vincent> aleecia: also have the two main proposal  (Shane and Jonhatan) to propose draft 
16:33:50 <fielding> okay, only a smallish one
16:33:51 <WileyS> +q
16:33:59 <aleecia> ack npdoty
16:34:06 <hwest> WileyS, that was my understanding as well
16:34:21 <vincent> npdoty: I'm happy to volunter, trying to merge things together
16:34:32 <justin_> It would be helpful to hear what needs to be "extended" in sections 5 and 6.
16:34:36 <vincent> aleecia: anyone would like to work with npdoty  on that?
16:34:41 <johnsimpson> Glad to work with Nick'
16:34:47 <aleecia> ack WileyS
16:34:50 <amyc> +1 justin
16:34:57 <npdoty> you don't have to commit right now, email is great
16:35:03 <vincent> WileyS: I'm a bit confused, though we completed that in the last f2f
16:35:21 <vincent> ... what we're tryign to do with this redo vs the last f2f
16:35:30 <justin_> q+
16:35:46 <amyc> Aleecia, can you explain what you mean by fully fleshed out?
16:35:57 <vincent> aleecia: it's not fully fleshed out righ now to have proposal complete to compare
16:36:30 <vincent> WileyS: should we take the current working draft and make edit from there or start from the two proposals?
16:37:08 <amyc> q+
16:37:15 <vincent> aleecia: fleshing out the middle ground exs: SOX compliance and financial loging
16:37:30 <vincent> WileyS: why would not focus on the independant issue then?
16:37:34 <justin_> +1 to WileyS
16:37:42 <hwest> +1
16:37:54 <npdoty> I thought I was still hearing a good-sized gap in the group on the permitted uses as a whole in Bellevue, was that not the case?
16:38:03 <vincent> aleecia: not trying to do a complete redo, just focusing on the permitted uses
16:38:17 <vincent> ... not at the level where we can publish this 
16:38:18 <WileyS> Nick - not the case, there were nits on the break outs but in general we were moving in a good direction
16:38:33 <vincent> ... some sections are not quite there yet
16:38:37 <aleecia> q?
16:38:43 <aleecia> ack justin_
16:39:10 <vincent> justin_:  echo what WileyS said, we should focus on specific issues
16:39:31 <henryg> henryg has joined #dnt
16:39:31 <vincent> ... I would like more guidance
16:39:33 <aleecia> 6.2.1.4 Frequency Capping
16:39:33 <aleecia> For limiting the number of times that a user sees a particular advertisement.
16:39:35 <aleecia> Example
16:39:36 <aleecia> A user visits ExampleNews with DNT:1 enabled. ExamplesNews uses the third party ExampleAds to serve content and advertisements on its site. ExampleAds is not an outsourcing partner of ExampleNews. ExampleAds has previously shown the user an ad for ExampleCars fives times in the past week on other sites. ExampleCars' contract with Example Ads states that Example Ads will be paid less for impressions where the user sees an ad more than five times in a week. 
16:39:38 <aleecia> ExampleAds may opt not to show the user the ad for ExampleCars because the user has already seen the ad five times on other sites.
16:39:39 <aleecia> In Seattle, we discussed specifically limiting how data was stored for frequency capping.
16:39:39 <aleecia> Server-side frequency capping is allowed if the tracking identifier is only retained in a form that is unique to each super-campaign (e.g., one-way hashed with a campaign id) and does not include retention of the user's activity trail (page URIs on which the ads were delivered) aside from what is allowed for other permitted uses.
16:40:17 <npdoty> WileyS, if there are only minor points of disagreement on permitted uses, that's great! that wasn't my understanding after the breakouts in Bellevue
16:40:18 <vincent> aleecia: we do not have something which is implementable or testable and that's what we're looking at
16:40:20 <WileyS> The Policy document is not "testable" in general - if that is now the bar we'll need a complete rewrite
16:40:41 <aleecia> q?
16:40:44 <WileyS> Aleecia, could you please enumerate the contentious items?
16:40:47 <aleecia> ack amyx
16:40:50 <aleecia> amyc
16:40:50 <vincent> aleecia: not looking at all section 5 & 6 but only to the things that are more contentious
16:40:53 <aleecia> ack amyc
16:41:13 <vincent> amyc: still confused, you want more technical details about frequency capping would occur
16:41:24 <aleecia> specifically 6.2.1
16:41:50 <vincent> aleecia: we should give some clues about implementation, more technical details
16:42:09 <vincent> ... curretnly they are at very high level, need to be made so that it can be imlemented
16:42:10 <justin_> I still believe that the policy spec should not be overly technically prescriptive, and it's especially hard to do so without agreement on what types of data can be collected and retained when DNT:1 is on.
16:42:29 <npdoty> q+
16:42:35 <aleecia> ack npdoty
16:42:38 <vincent> amyc: we should make sure every body is ok on the defintion of collect/use,...
16:42:42 <WileyS> Why are adding technical details to the C&S document?  Its specifically in a different document to avoid that.
16:42:57 <Zakim> + +1.425.455.aapp
16:43:40 <WileyS> Those saying they can't live with permitted uses are those that don't actually need to implement DNT as a 3rd party.
16:43:45 <vincent> npdoty: I though after Bellevue that there was no agreement on tracking cookies
16:43:50 <WileyS> +q
16:43:56 <justin_> ack WileyS
16:43:59 <aleecia> ack WileyS
16:43:59 <vincent> ... if there is an agreement that's news to me
16:44:26 <tl> Anonymous != pseudonymous.
16:44:45 <tl> The terms are well-defined.
16:45:50 <vincent> WileyS: implementation is a goal, we need to get beyond the philisophical issue of are unique id cookie permitted (is that correct?)
16:46:08 <vincent> aleecia: we're nto going to close that in a 1h30 call
16:46:33 <vincent> ... looking for specific for specific text, we're not get a consensus on this text on the call
16:47:13 <vincent> aleecia: we have two text that arrived in Seattle and a lot fo progress made in Seattle
16:47:15 <dsinger> I think we should try to manage 'tracking', and be silent about what technologies you do or don't use to do or not do tracking (e.g. cookies, local storage, remote storage, cloud storage, …)
16:47:32 <WileyS> The issues with the current text are not with the text itself - but rather with the philosophy of allowing a unique ID cookie.  Revamping text is not going to solve the issue in my opinion.
16:47:53 <vincent> ... if the authors of the proposal would like to merge the proposal to what s already be doe, that's great progress
16:48:11 <felten> There's a spectrum of views in the group, right?
16:48:12 <vincent> WileyS: the otehr proposal has an hard line on the use of unique ID cookies
16:48:27 <vincent> ... revamping text will not bring use beyond that
16:48:40 <johnsimpson> q?
16:48:52 <vincent> aleecia: I'm looking to have a series of text that are concrete to put them side by side
16:49:04 <npdoty> I'm willing to work on a compromise to try to address that big question
16:49:11 <WileyS> Jonathan - this is discussion is on the agenda
16:49:11 <Zakim> -[FTC]
16:49:13 <vincent> ... and find where we have consensus and we move forward
16:49:25 <vincent> ... should be complete before the f2f
16:49:35 <WileyS> Its already nailed down but let's churn if that makes everyone happy
16:50:07 <vincent> ... right now we have two proposal and new things from Seattle, looking to have something we can contrast
16:50:21 <aleecia> q?
16:50:43 <fielding> please delete 3.3.2.3
16:50:55 <vincent> aleecia: tryign to get somebody on the call to speak about sox compliance
16:51:05 <vincent> ... probably in two weeks
16:51:11 <Chris_IAB> somebody, as in an expert on SOX compliance?
16:51:12 <WileyS> SOX is only one financial legal standard in the world - we'll need to look at others as well.
16:51:29 <WileyS> Aleecia, we'll focus on the C&S document at this point.
16:51:36 <WileyS> I won't go back to the original document.
16:51:42 <WileyS> +q
16:52:19 <aleecia> ack WileyS
16:52:43 <vincent> WileyS:  not going to restart from the initial text
16:53:11 <vincent> ... if you could help iterate where you see contention that'd be helpful and we will provide additional text
16:53:38 <jmayer> Sure.
16:53:52 <vincent> aleecia: jmayer do you think that you'll have time to make change that you'd like to do based on seattle
16:54:14 <WileyS> We have text is the spec now
16:54:15 <vincent> aorry did not get that
16:54:15 <aleecia> agenda?
16:54:19 <npdoty> action: mayer to update proposal on permitted uses based on Seattle
16:54:19 <WileyS> "in" the spec
16:54:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-234 - Update proposal on permitted uses based on Seattle [on Jonathan Mayer - due 2012-08-15].
16:54:34 <aleecia>      <p class="option"><b>0:</b> silence. (Keep paragraph above that "MUST reflect the user's choice")</p>
16:54:34 <aleecia>      <p class="option"><b>3:</b>
16:54:34 <fielding> and delete 3.3.2.4 and 3.3.2.5 and 3.3.2.6 (I already wrote objections to all of those -- they should never have been added)
16:54:35 <aleecia>        A user agent MUST take equal effort to configure their agent to each of a minimum of three choices for a Do Not Track preference: on, off or unset.
16:54:36 <aleecia>      </p>
16:54:46 <npdoty> action: doty to draft middle way draft on permitted uses
16:54:46 <trackbot> Created ACTION-235 - Draft middle way draft on permitted uses [on Nick Doty - due 2012-08-15].
16:54:55 <vincent> aleecia: one more piece on choices offered by the UA
16:55:08 <vincent> ... in seattle we had sevaral option
16:55:29 <vincent> aleecia: UA should reflect the user choices
16:55:52 <jmayer> +q
16:55:53 <justin_> (1) captures my point of view.
16:55:57 <vincent> ... other possibility DNT:On, DNT:off unset
16:56:02 <aleecia> ack jmayer
16:56:11 <dsinger> can someone briefly explain why I would ever config to say dnt:0 always?
16:56:15 <npdoty> action-235: as WileyS points out, divide on unique tracking cookies might be key question to address
16:56:15 <trackbot> ACTION-235 Draft middle way draft on permitted uses notes added
16:56:42 <npdoty> dsinger, if you're happy with tracking and targeted ads and don't want to be asked even in your jurisdiction, you might install a DNT:0 extension
16:56:47 <fielding> ACTION-235?
16:56:47 <trackbot> ACTION-235 -- Nick Doty to draft middle way draft on permitted uses -- due 2012-08-15 -- OPEN
16:56:47 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/235
16:57:08 <vincent> jmayer: there could eb more options, how many options should be avialble and waht consitute an informed choice
16:57:29 <vincent> aleecia: we're just getting how many choices should be presented to the user
16:57:53 <justin_> A user agent must offer a control to express a tracking preference to third parties. The control must communicate the user's preference in accordance with the [[!!TRACKING-DNT]] recommendation and otherwise comply with that recommendation. A user agent must not express a tracking preference for a user unless the user has given express and informed consent to indicate a tracking preference.
16:57:58 <dsinger> npdoty, I don't think I follow
16:58:11 <johnsimpson> q+
16:58:20 <jmayer> I think we need to do a lot to clarify "must reflect a user's choice," but that's not under discussion now.
16:58:22 <vincent> aleecia: I'll make sure  in the mailing list that we have the section referenced
16:58:29 <aleecia> ack johnsimpson
16:59:01 <npdoty> jmayer, I think this was a question *in addition to* existing language on MUST user choice, no default
16:59:07 <dsinger> q+ to ask why I have to offer dnt:0; who would use it?
16:59:13 <npdoty> q+ to answer john
16:59:14 <aleecia> ack dsinger
16:59:15 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask why I have to offer dnt:0; who would use it?
16:59:21 <vincent> johnsimpson: I was reading the TPE and there is already language about waht the UA must do (offer DNT:1, Unset and 0 is optional)
16:59:24 <ifette> A surprising amount of non-consensus language seems to make it into the document
16:59:33 <aleecia> (thought David was going to, sorry -)
16:59:36 <jmayer> (Some participants think that language requires an explicit choice, some think it only bars an unchangeable setting in a browser, some think it's between.)
17:00:06 <fielding> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#determining
17:00:09 <vincent> dsinger: only use case for DNT:0 is for juridication where trackign is not permitted and DNT 0 would allow it, not aware of such juridication
17:00:29 <jmayer> npdoty, yes, this current discussion is just on the #/type of options required.
17:00:45 <vincent> aleecia: if that's something you can not live with you should mention during the poll
17:00:47 <aleecia> q?
17:00:51 <fielding> I believe we were going to have an open issue about one of those paragraphs moving to the compliance document, namely
17:01:05 <fielding> … "A user agent must offer users a minimum of two alternative choices for a "Do Not Track" preference: unset or DNT:1. A user agent may offer a third alternative choice: DNT:0."
17:01:22 <vincent> npdoty: we do have language on this, the question wether or not we have enough language
17:01:34 <vincent> ... about how easy it should be to select DNT 0
17:01:39 <justin_> ifette, There are additional options in that section based on WileyS's proposal.
17:01:50 <aleecia> q?
17:01:52 <npdoty> q-
17:02:04 <vincent> aleecia: there is also a difference between what a site must accept and what the UA may send
17:02:24 <aleecia> agenda?
17:02:36 <justin_> Never clear when we should revise the document based on disagreements on the mailing list.
17:02:39 <vincent> aleecia: npdoty should set a poll on this
17:02:57 <amyc> q+
17:03:01 <npdoty> action: doty to set up poll on objections regarding minimum choices for UA
17:03:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-236 - Set up poll on objections regarding minimum choices for UA [on Nick Doty - due 2012-08-15].
17:03:02 <aleecia> ack amyc
17:03:20 <vincent> aleecia: is a week enough for this process?
17:03:30 <vincent> amyc: could you explain the process
17:03:39 <tl> +q
17:03:51 <vincent> aleecia: it is about what  you can live with (not about what you can't live with)
17:03:52 <npdoty> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/decision-policy.html -- "Call for objections"
17:04:08 <robsherman> +q
17:04:15 <vincent> it's the opptosite?
17:04:26 <justin_> yes, vincent, the opposite.
17:04:28 <amyc> thanks Nick
17:04:35 <vincent> thaks justin_ 
17:04:44 <aleecia> q?
17:04:47 <aleecia> ack tl
17:04:48 <npdoty> aleecia: it's about what you cannot live with, if anything (not a count of how many people prefer)
17:04:51 <Zakim> + +1.917.934.aaqq
17:05:00 <vincent> s/can/can't/
17:05:09 <vinay> vinay has joined #dnt
17:05:35 <vincent> tl: are also invited expert par tof this process
17:05:54 <Zakim> -samsilberman
17:05:55 <npdoty> W3C groups generally gather consensus among all participants, which include Members who join the group and Invited Experts in the group
17:06:04 <vincent> aleecia: yes, IEs and members are the same on this
17:06:12 <justin_> zakim, unmute robsherman
17:06:12 <Zakim> robsherman should no longer be muted
17:06:14 <aleecia> ack robsherman
17:06:16 <vincent> ... the only difference is on IP issue
17:06:30 <ifette> +1
17:06:39 <ifette> this is something i am going to have to float around
17:06:44 <vincent> robsherman: I suggest at least two weeks, need to talk with stakeholders
17:06:51 <johnsimpson> q+
17:06:53 <vincent> aleecia: ok, fine with two weeks
17:06:58 <Zakim> - +1.425.455.aapp
17:07:01 <aleecia> ack johnsimpson
17:07:02 <adrianba> two weeks is good
17:07:24 <npdoty> just a comparison between one paragraph and another
17:07:27 <vincent> johnsimpson: you're talking about polling about a specific issue, not the entire document
17:07:42 <vincent> aleecia: yes, it's just about a specifc and very small issue
17:08:20 <npdoty> action-236: give two weeks to respond
17:08:20 <trackbot> ACTION-236 Set up poll on objections regarding minimum choices for UA notes added
17:08:26 <aleecia> q?
17:08:26 <vincent> aleecia: we will also try to find a consistent subject line so that it is simple to find in the mailing list
17:08:44 <aleecia> agenda?
17:09:02 <vincent> aleecia: the question is how much time we need to process the polling
17:09:03 <Zakim> + +1.425.455.aarr
17:09:09 <Zakim> -RichardWeaver
17:09:11 <aleecia> 	(a) ISSUE-21	PENDING REVIEW	Enable external audit of DNT compliance
17:09:11 <aleecia> 		PROPOSAL: we have previously agreed upon an optional array of URIs to list any auditors, as included in the TPE document. Let us add a pointer from the Compliance document to the TPE document, and close this issue.
17:09:45 <vincent> aleecia: couple of proposals came in for auditing, we decline the most complicated
17:10:00 <fielding> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#status-representation
17:10:02 <vincent> ... we sad as a group that we could have an optional array of auditors
17:10:08 <jmayer> +q
17:10:10 <vincent> ... we never closed the issue
17:10:13 <aleecia> ack jmayer
17:10:32 <Zakim> -justin_
17:10:34 <vincent> ... proposition: have a pointer to the TPE section about that array
17:10:41 <vincent> ... objections?
17:11:31 <vincent> I'm not getting the response from jmayer 
17:11:51 <aleecia> q?
17:11:52 <npdoty> jmayer: I support this change, originally the issue was about enabling auditing or compliance in general
17:11:57 <vincent> aleecia: if you have an extra audit you could say the auditors are here
17:12:03 <vincent> thx npdoty 
17:12:07 <npdoty> ... which is now a concern that comes up across issues, but that's originally what this was
17:12:46 <npdoty> resolution: close issue 21 and editors add pointer text in Compliance spec
17:12:48 <vincent> aleecia: justin_ and hwest can add a pointer to the section in the TPE spec
17:12:51 <WileyS> tlr - what does the BBL stand for?  :-)
17:13:04 <vincent> hwest: would be happy to do that within  a week
17:13:05 <fielding> more specific, http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#dfn-audit
17:13:07 <WileyS> ahhh - thank you
17:13:14 <jmayer> Thanks npdoty.  I think concerns about guaranteeing compliance are now sufficiently cross-cutting that they shouldn't be a standalone ISSUE.  Just wanted to be clear that we're not suggesting "Mission Accomplished" on compliance because there's a magic auditor field.
17:13:22 <aleecia> 	(b) ISSUE-45	PENDING REVIEW	Companies making public commitments with a "regulatory hook" for US legal purposes
17:13:23 <aleecia> 		PROPOSAL: we have previously agreed to the general direction below. Unless someone has new information or cannot live with the text, let us adopt it and close this issue:
17:13:23 <aleecia> 		In order to be in compliance with this specification, a third party must make a public commitment that it complies with this standard. A "public commitment" may consist of a statement in a privacy policy, a response header, a machine-readable tracking status resource at a well-known location, or any other reasonable means. This standard does not require a specific form of public commitment.
17:13:28 <fielding> issue-45?
17:13:28 <trackbot> ISSUE-45 -- Companies making public commitments with a "regulatory hook" for US legal purposes -- pending review
17:13:28 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/45
17:13:31 <npdoty> action: west to update Compliance spec with pointer regarding issue-21
17:13:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-237 - Update Compliance spec with pointer regarding issue-21 [on Heather West - due 2012-08-15].
17:13:44 <vincent> aleecia: issue-45 is also pending review but never closed
17:13:51 <vincent> ... already have text for quite some time
17:13:59 <fielding> q+
17:14:11 <dsinger> issue-45?
17:14:11 <trackbot> ISSUE-45 -- Companies making public commitments with a "regulatory hook" for US legal purposes -- pending review
17:14:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/45
17:14:13 <fielding> TPE does require a specific form.
17:14:29 <WileyS> Roy, For a UA to be HTML5 compliant, I'm assuming they must publicall state they are HTML5 compliant, correct?  If that's the case, then that makes sense here too.
17:14:45 <npdoty> ack fielding 
17:14:46 <vincent> aleecia: we had pretty good agreement on this text, we can close the issue
17:14:50 <tl> Header or URI, no?
17:14:59 <vincent> fielding: now the TPE require the well known location
17:15:17 <Zakim> -BerinSzoka
17:15:19 <vincent> aleecia: are you ok to fix this
17:15:25 <vincent> fielding: ok
17:15:39 <vincent> aleecia: you can past that in IRC and if no objection, adopt this
17:15:46 <adrianba> q+
17:15:55 <aleecia> ack adrianba
17:16:49 <jmayer> +q
17:16:49 <vincent> adrianba: confused, in order to be in compliance you have to make a public comitement
17:17:03 <vincent> ... why do we need to say something like this in the spec
17:17:09 <aleecia> ack jmayer
17:17:12 <Chris_IAB> agree with that statement David
17:17:22 <fielding> New text: In order to be in compliance with this specification, an origin server MUST make a public commitment that it complies with this standard through the provision of a site-wide tracking status resource [[!TRACKING-DNT]].
17:17:49 <jmayer> Offered to give an answer, but I wasn't sure if it was needed.
17:18:03 <vincent> aleecia: the point of issue-45 is to have tome type of regulatory enforcement
17:18:08 <jmayer> +q
17:18:19 <dsinger> Perhaps it needs to be stated the other way up: the existence of the well-known resource is a claim of compliance with the spec.
17:18:23 <vincent> .. if company does not claim something there is no enforcement option
17:18:31 <dsinger> q+
17:18:33 <fielding> shorter: An origin server MUST make a public commitment that it complies with this standard through the provision of a site-wide tracking status resource [[!TRACKING-DNT]].
17:18:37 <aleecia> ack jmayer
17:18:44 <vincent> aleecia: if you're going to comply with this, you should make a public statement
17:19:09 <ifette> pick-and-choose is going to be a reality no matter what the spec says
17:19:13 <Zakim> +justin_
17:19:26 <WileyS> The FTC will only hold a company to their public committments - so if a company says that then that is what they are gauged on
17:19:35 <ifette> q+
17:19:39 <vincent> jmayer: let's suppose we don't have this requirement, companies could select with which part of the spec they're compliant
17:19:39 <WileyS> +q
17:19:56 <aleecia> ack dsinger
17:20:36 <npdoty> I believe that's what fielding is suggesting (that the WKL is a claim of compliance)
17:20:43 <jmayer> My point: this requirement establishes a tighter nexus between "we support Do Not Track" and this particular set of documents.  It makes enforcement easier.
17:20:46 <vincent> dsinger: what are the other way out, maybe we should say that the implementation the well known resource is a claim of compliance
17:20:47 <aleecia> ack ifette
17:21:04 <fielding> I don't think that section 6.6 is necessary -- I just want it to be less incorrect.
17:21:18 <jmayer> My other point: There's nothing new here, it's the same way curent self-regulation is (in theory) enforceable.
17:21:22 <vincent> ifette: linked to waht we expect to be machine readble and what we expect to be human readable
17:21:45 <jmayer> +q
17:21:52 <aleecia> ack WileyS
17:21:56 <Chris_IAB> I'm not sure that we need to include mechanisms for enforcement through this spec.  Enforcement is a local issue, and we can't possibly address all local legal concerns around the world.  Finally, we are not lawyers on this group, are we?
17:21:58 <vincent> ... even that does not prevent the pick and choose approach
17:22:10 <vincent> WileyS: the language does not change the ability to pck and choose
17:22:25 <aleecia> ack jmayer
17:22:40 <adrianba> q+
17:22:41 <vincent> ... an organisation could say I support this part and not this one, the FTC could only verify the part that are claimed
17:22:47 <Chris_IAB> agree, this is a volunteer spec (not a "standards" until it is widely adopted-- definition of standard is wide adoption)
17:22:51 <WileyS> Disagree strongly
17:23:16 <dsinger> people will implement in stages…that's reality
17:23:26 <Chris_IAB> WileyS, who are you disagreeing strongly with?
17:23:32 <vincent> jmayer: companies will have to be veery explicit if they go for the pick& choose
17:23:47 <aleecia> ack adrianba
17:24:04 <fielding> jmayer, you just argued against including this section -- it is irrelevant
17:24:07 <ifette> i'll be amazed if we come to a point where everyone is going to take or leave the spec as-is
17:24:10 <WileyS> Disagreeing with Jmayer assertion that we must look for ways for the entire spec to be supported
17:24:21 <Chris_IAB> Thanks WileyS
17:24:53 <vincent> adrianba: at MS when the W3C draft come for implementation, we publish a doc explaining the compliance with the spec
17:24:57 <felten> +q
17:24:59 <WileyS> +1 to who was just speaking
17:25:02 <tl> I think that that is one major respect in which DNT and HTML5 are very different.
17:25:03 <aleecia> ack felten
17:25:13 <rvaneijk> @WileyS: if the spec isn't implemented, even though is already contains MAY's and SHOULDS, what is the added value in the end....
17:25:13 <vincent> ... browsers may be compliant with only parts of the spec, iterative process
17:25:16 <npdoty> s/who was just speaking/adrianba/
17:26:05 <jmayer> Point 1) we shouldn't facilitate picking and choosing parts of the spec to implement.  I'm deeply concerned that reps from Yahoo, Google, and other companies have suggested they might ex post unilaterally renegotiate Do Not Track.  Point 2) an explicit representation requirement disincentivizes picking and choosing by requiring very careful phrasing if a company does that.  It can't simply say "we support Do Not Track."
17:26:12 <fielding> yep, thanks Ed
17:26:15 <vincent> felten: we should distinguish global claims vs local claims
17:26:29 <npdoty> adrianba: and for many specs, we don't have 100% of the Recommendation fulfilled in every version of the spec, takes time to implement, etc.
17:26:43 <WileyS> jmayer - we've not suggested anything of that kind - we've only stated it should be an option
17:26:55 <vincent> aleecia: two difference case you're explaining 
17:27:00 <justin_> So a requirement that a company clearly and publicly state *the extent* to which they're compliant with the spec?
17:27:24 <WileyS> Justin, that sounds like a good approach
17:28:05 <vincent> felten: two representaiton: one in the policy  written by PR
17:28:12 <jmayer> +q
17:28:18 <vincent> ... one sent by the server to a specific request
17:28:21 <aleecia> ack jmayer
17:28:33 <Zakim> -ChrisPedigoOPA
17:28:57 <adrianba> s/the W3C draft come for implementation/a W3C draft becomes a W3C Recommendation/
17:29:15 <adrianba> s/explaining the compliance with the spec/explaining our support of the spec/
17:29:16 <npdoty> felten's point, as I understand it, is that a particular response (like header or WKL) should be an accurate representation, separate from questions about your privacy policy
17:29:37 <felten> Yes, Nick summarized me correctly.
17:29:40 <vincent> jmayer, sorry I did not get what you said
17:29:53 <WileyS> Agreed on the requirement to honor DNT "to the extent to which a server states it will honor DNT".
17:29:53 <dsinger> in the small, what you do implement should comply.  whether you have all the i's dotted and t's crossed is another question
17:30:03 <fielding> I prefer Nick's 
17:30:07 <Zakim> -Brian_Amazon
17:30:13 <Zakim> - +aamm
17:30:50 <Zakim> -dsriedel
17:30:51 <Zakim> -KevinT
17:30:52 <Zakim> -aleecia
17:30:52 <Zakim> - +1.917.934.aaqq
17:30:53 <KevinT> KevinT has left #dnt
17:30:53 <felten> felten has left #dnt
17:30:53 <Zakim> -BrendanIAB?
17:30:54 <Zakim> -justin_
17:30:55 <Zakim> -[Apple]
17:30:55 <Zakim> -johnsimpson
17:30:55 <robsherman> robsherman has left #dnt
17:30:57 <Zakim> -WileyS
17:30:59 <Zakim> -adrianba
17:31:01 <Zakim> -cblouch
17:31:03 <Zakim> -Joanne
17:31:05 <Zakim> -Chapell
17:31:07 <Zakim> -jeffwilson
17:31:09 <Zakim> -alex
17:31:11 <Zakim> -felten
17:31:13 <Zakim> -bilcorry
17:31:14 <npdoty> aleecia: thanks for being on the call today, expect quite a bit of email, including an action for you to respond to a poll regarding tri-part state
17:31:15 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
17:31:15 <ifette> zakim, list partcipants
17:31:17 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
17:31:19 <Zakim> -eberkower
17:31:21 <Zakim> - +1.425.455.aarr
17:31:23 <Zakim> -tl
17:31:25 <Zakim> -robsherman
17:31:26 <npdoty> ... next week will be TPE
17:31:27 <Zakim> -[Microsoft.a]
17:31:29 <Zakim> -Lia
17:31:31 <npdoty> ... we're adjourned this week
17:31:33 <Zakim> -fielding
17:31:35 <Zakim> -vincent
17:31:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'list partcipants', ifette
17:31:39 <Zakim> -hwest
17:31:42 <ifette> rrsagent, list participants
17:31:42 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'list participants', ifette.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:31:42 <jmayer> My suggestion: We don't have agreement on whether a site should be able to send back "I got your DNT, but I'm not honoring it" while being in compliance with the spec.  But I think we might have agreement that, for the ordinary case where a site doesn't send that, it is representing compliance with the entire bundle of DNT obligations.  In other words, we don't have agreement on whether DNT compliance extends to all users, but we might have agreement about what i
17:31:43 <Zakim> -npdoty
17:31:45 <ifette> ugh
17:31:49 <ifette> zakim, list partcipants
17:31:49 <Zakim> I don't understand 'list partcipants', ifette
17:31:53 <ifette> what am i doing wrong
17:32:02 <fielding> zakim, list attendees
17:32:02 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been npdoty, +1.646.654.aaaa, eberkower, aleecia, ifette, Chris_IAB, +1.609.310.aabb, felten, +1.714.852.aacc, fielding, BrendanIAB?, adrianba,
17:32:06 <Zakim> ... Dabiano_Nielsen, +1.916.641.aadd, +1.650.308.aaee, robsherman, Joanne, +1.540.822.aaff, WileyS, rvaneijk, +1.202.345.aagg, samsilberman, jeffwilson, [Microsoft], cblouch,
17:32:06 <Zakim> ... RichardWeaver, justin_, +1.202.695.aahh, Lia, +1.202.642.aaii, tl, hwest, vincent, alex, +1.919.388.aajj, johnsimpson, AnnaLong, jmayer, ChrisPedigoOPA, BerinSzoka, dsinger,
17:32:11 <Zakim> ... +1.646.666.aakk, +1.866.317.aall, bilcorry, [Mozilla], dsriedel, +aamm, +1.202.326.aann, Chapell, Brian_Amazon, Chris, Peder, +1.415.520.aaoo, KevinT, +1.425.455.aapp,
17:32:11 <Zakim> ... +1.917.934.aaqq, +1.425.455.aarr
17:32:13 <Zakim> -Dabiano_Nielsen
17:32:13 <Zakim> -jmayer
17:32:17 <ifette> didn't participants used to work? ugh
17:32:23 <ifette> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:32:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/08-dnt-minutes.html ifette
17:32:26 <Zakim> -[Google]
17:33:24 <fielding> I have a hard time remembering any of the commands -- I think the bot has an East Coast bias.
17:33:41 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has left #dnt
17:33:54 <npdoty> fielding, what would make it more West Coast friendly?
17:34:15 <Zakim> -AnnaLong
17:34:25 <Zakim> -Chris_IAB
17:34:29 <sidstamm> npdoty, teach it "dude" and "surf"  ;-)
17:34:35 <fielding> ship Ralph out to Berkeley for a few years
17:35:06 <fielding> yeah, first off, his name should be dude
17:35:16 <npdoty> rrsagen, please hella draft the minutes
17:35:38 <fielding> dude, whassup
17:36:21 <npdoty> aaction: nick to request that Ralph teach Zakim West-coast slang
17:36:37 <aleecia> I'd love for Zakim to answer, "I have generated the whasssssuuup!, fielding"
17:38:42 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:38:44 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:38:44 <Zakim> Attendees were npdoty, +1.646.654.aaaa, eberkower, aleecia, ifette, Chris_IAB, +1.609.310.aabb, felten, +1.714.852.aacc, fielding, BrendanIAB?, adrianba, Dabiano_Nielsen,
17:38:44 <Zakim> ... +1.916.641.aadd, +1.650.308.aaee, robsherman, Joanne, +1.540.822.aaff, WileyS, rvaneijk, +1.202.345.aagg, samsilberman, jeffwilson, [Microsoft], cblouch, RichardWeaver,
17:38:46 <Zakim> ... justin_, +1.202.695.aahh, Lia, +1.202.642.aaii, tl, hwest, vincent, alex, +1.919.388.aajj, johnsimpson, AnnaLong, jmayer, ChrisPedigoOPA, BerinSzoka, dsinger, +1.646.666.aakk,
17:38:46 <Zakim> ... +1.866.317.aall, bilcorry, [Mozilla], dsriedel, +aamm, +1.202.326.aann, Chapell, Brian_Amazon, Chris, Peder, +1.415.520.aaoo, KevinT, +1.425.455.aapp, +1.917.934.aaqq,
17:38:49 <Zakim> ... +1.425.455.aarr
17:52:50 <cblouch> cblouch has left #dnt
18:52:31 <tl> tl has joined #dnt
19:04:41 <lgombos> lgombos has joined #dnt
19:11:41 <tl> tl has joined #dnt
19:58:31 <tl> tl has joined #dnt
20:17:02 <lgombos> lgombos has joined #dnt