IRC log of dnt on 2013-04-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:51:37 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:51:37 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:51:39 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:51:39 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #dnt
15:51:41 [Yianni]
Yianni has joined #DNT
15:51:41 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
15:51:41 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:51:42 [trackbot]
Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:51:43 [trackbot]
Date: 10 April 2013
15:51:49 [npdoty]
Zakim, this will be TRACK
15:51:49 [Zakim]
ok, npdoty; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
15:52:46 [peterswire]
peterswire has joined #dnt
15:54:21 [robsherman]
robsherman has joined #dnt
15:54:37 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:54:44 [Zakim]
15:56:02 [LMastria_DAA]
LMastria_DAA has joined #DNT
15:57:02 [Zakim]
15:57:12 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
15:58:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.344.aaaa
15:58:08 [Zakim]
15:58:20 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-781
15:58:20 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
15:58:22 [Zakim]
15:58:35 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
15:58:42 [tlr]
zakim, I am thomas
15:58:42 [Zakim]
ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
15:58:44 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
15:58:44 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
15:58:45 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.202.344.aaaa (18%), dwainberg (43%)
15:58:50 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.587.aabb - is perhaps Yianni?
15:58:55 [samsilberman]
samsilberman has joined #dnt
15:59:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.240.994.aacc - is perhaps peter?
15:59:18 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
15:59:20 [Yianni]
Zakim, mute me
15:59:20 [Zakim]
Yianni? should now be muted
15:59:39 [Joanne]
Joanne has joined #DNT
15:59:46 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
15:59:46 [Zakim]
Thomas was already muted, tlr
15:59:51 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaaa is LMastria_DAA
15:59:51 [Zakim]
+LMastria_DAA; got it
15:59:56 [peterswire]
any volunteers for scribing, such as the first half?
16:00:00 [npdoty]
Zakim, LMastria_DAA has mikez
16:00:00 [Zakim]
+mikez; got it
16:00:02 [Zakim]
16:00:11 [rigo]
rigo has joined #dnt
16:00:16 [npdoty]
Zakim, LMastria_DAA has marcg
16:00:16 [Zakim]
+marcg; got it
16:00:19 [Wileys]
Wileys has joined #DNT
16:00:20 [Zakim]
16:00:26 [Zakim]
16:00:30 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:00:36 [Zakim]
16:00:37 [jchester2]
jchester2 has joined #dnt
16:00:43 [rigo]
zakim, call rigo-mobile
16:00:43 [Zakim]
ok, rigo; the call is being made
16:00:45 [Zakim]
16:00:48 [Chris_IAB]
Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
16:00:49 [Zakim]
16:01:00 [Zakim]
16:01:01 [prestia]
prestia has joined #dnt
16:01:08 [Zakim]
16:01:11 [jeffwilson]
jeffwilson has joined #dnt
16:01:23 [Zakim]
16:01:26 [vinay]
vinay has joined #dnt
16:01:33 [npdoty]
scribenick: LMastria_DAA
16:01:33 [justin]
justin has joined #dnt
16:01:39 [Zakim]
16:01:48 [Zakim]
16:01:56 [kj]
kj has joined #dnt
16:01:59 [Zakim]
16:02:08 [Richard_comScore]
Richard_comScore has joined #dnt
16:02:08 [Zakim]
16:02:11 [Chris_IAB]
Just joined via a private number
16:02:19 [Zakim]
16:02:21 [tlr]
zakim, ??P49 is probably Chris_IAB
16:02:22 [David_MacMillan]
David_MacMillan has joined #dnt
16:02:22 [Zakim]
+Chris_IAB?; got it
16:02:24 [jchester2]
zakim, mute me
16:02:24 [Zakim]
jchester2 should now be muted
16:02:27 [Zakim]
16:02:29 [LMastria_DAA]
discussion re UI did not have issues ... Peter apologuzed and soon to be issued w numbers by Nick Doty
16:02:36 [dsinger]
zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:02:36 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
16:02:44 [Zakim]
16:02:51 [Zakim]
16:02:58 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
16:03:07 [Zakim]
16:03:34 [LMastria_DAA]
Chapell proposal re user education = 1st item on agenda...waiting for Matthias b/c proposal is a confluence w TPE
16:03:57 [hefferjr]
hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:04:06 [dsinger]
16:04:06 [trackbot]
ACTION-373 -- Aleecia McDonald to propose text prohibiting data append (because it requires sharing, or otherwise; with jchester) -- due 2013-03-20 -- OPEN
16:04:06 [trackbot]
16:04:07 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire moving to append? b/c wanting to wait for MAtthias
16:04:08 [Zakim]
16:04:14 [dsinger]
zakim, who is making noise?
16:04:21 [LMastria_DAA]
so, now moving to issue 373
16:04:22 [kj]
kj has joined #dnt
16:04:23 [npdoty]
16:04:25 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: peter? (57%), hwest (56%)
16:04:35 [Zakim]
16:04:39 [adrianba]
zakim, code?
16:04:39 [Zakim]
the conference code is 87225 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, adrianba
16:04:40 [npdoty]
topic: Data Append
16:04:53 [schunter1]
Zakim, ??P21 is schunter
16:04:53 [Zakim]
+schunter; got it
16:04:56 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.465.aadd
16:04:56 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
16:05:13 [LMastria_DAA]
much of discussion came to a subset of categories for data append
16:05:17 [ninjamarnau]
ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
16:05:21 [jchester2]
where is Yianni's memo?
16:05:22 [Marc_]
Marc_ has joined #dnt
16:05:23 [Zakim]
16:05:31 [adrianba]
zakim, [Microsoft] is me
16:05:31 [Zakim]
+adrianba; got it
16:05:36 [adrianba]
zakim, mute me
16:05:36 [Zakim]
adrianba should now be muted
16:05:45 [Zakim]
+ +49.431.98.aaee
16:05:46 [Mike_Zaneis]
Mike_Zaneis has joined #DNT
16:05:52 [LMastria_DAA]
1st party operating as a 3rd party...asking FB (rob sherman) to talk about bare bones language
16:06:00 [ninjamarnau]
zakim, aaee is ninjamarnau
16:06:00 [Zakim]
+ninjamarnau; got it
16:06:19 [npdoty]
background memo on append:
16:06:27 [jchester2]
thanks, Nick
16:06:55 [Brooks]
Brooks has joined #dnt
16:06:57 [moneill2]
moneill2 has joined #dnt
16:07:05 [Zakim]
16:07:07 [LMastria_DAA]
Chris Pedigo not avail right now, so moving along
16:07:07 [David_MacMillan]
zakim, aadd is David_MacMillan
16:07:07 [Zakim]
+David_MacMillan; got it
16:07:26 [Zakim]
16:07:30 [Zakim]
16:07:35 [Walter]
Zakim, Ipcaller is Walter
16:07:35 [Zakim]
+Walter; got it
16:07:43 [jchester2]
zakim, unmute me
16:07:43 [Zakim]
jchester2 should no longer be muted
16:07:47 [moneill2]
zakim, [IPCaller] is me
16:07:48 [Zakim]
sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named '[IPCaller]'
16:07:58 [npdoty]
Zakim, [IPcaller.a] may be moneill2
16:07:58 [Zakim]
+moneill2?; got it
16:07:59 [LMastria_DAA]
ok to review white pages and other material
16:07:59 [Walter]
Zakim, IPCaller.a is moneill2
16:08:00 [Zakim]
sorry, Walter, I do not recognize a party named 'IPCaller.a'
16:08:21 [Wileys]
Disagree with this approach as it can't be applied in real-time. This approach requires the 1st party store a user's DNT signal in the online world for application in the offline world. This is FAR outside of the scope of the DNT.
16:08:33 [cOlsen]
cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:08:36 [LMastria_DAA]
John Simpson: should not include 3rd party data
16:08:47 [Chris_IAB]
if it's out of scope, then it's out of scope-- not prohibited
16:08:51 [Chris_IAB]
16:09:06 [LMastria_DAA]
J Chester: targeting should be prohibited
16:09:09 [jchester2]
zakim, mute me
16:09:09 [Zakim]
jchester2 should now be muted
16:09:13 [Zakim]
16:09:17 [Zakim]
16:09:32 [vincent]
vincent has joined #dnt
16:09:36 [Wileys]
16:09:36 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:10:01 [schunter1]
What are concrete examples?
16:10:07 [npdoty]
John Simpson: accept a distinction between online and offline; if the data is out of band, not a problem
16:10:08 [LMastria_DAA]
Mejia: out of scope clarification being sought .... is something prohibited or out of scope?
16:10:20 [Mike_Zaneis]
Agree with Shane's technical point. On a broader point, we agreed that 1st party activities should generally be out of scope of the DNT standard. I would oppose this provision.
16:10:22 [npdoty]
I thought maybe John Simpson and Chris Mejia are agreeing?
16:10:30 [schunter1]
Would this be an example: The site gets my IP, determines that I am in Darmstadt and pulls 3rd party data on Darmstadt Weather?
16:10:37 [jchester2]
zakim, unmute me
16:10:37 [Zakim]
jchester2 should no longer be muted
16:10:42 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire: if we prohibit something out of scope, does not seem to make sense
16:10:49 [Wileys]
There is a queue John
16:10:50 [peterswire]
16:10:57 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
16:10:57 [dsinger]
zakim, who is making noise?
16:11:02 [npdoty]
ack Chris_IAB
16:11:07 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: peter? (6%), WileyS (5%), johnsimpson (86%)
16:11:12 [jchester2]
zakim, mute me
16:11:12 [Zakim]
jchester2 should now be muted
16:11:18 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: peter? (55%), Chris_IAB? (15%), jchester2 (4%)
16:11:24 [Zakim]
16:11:26 [Zakim]
16:11:31 [LMastria_DAA]
Simpson: 1st party cannot bring data from outside 1st party transaction
16:11:40 [npdoty]
John Simpson: wouldn't try to prohibit combining data like from White Pages and being used offline, but would prohibit its use *during* an online transaction
16:11:42 [JC]
JC has joined #DNT
16:11:45 [jchester2]
zakim, unmute me
16:11:45 [Zakim]
jchester2 should no longer be muted
16:11:47 [Zakim]
16:11:58 [npdoty]
16:12:07 [Chapell]
16:12:19 [LMastria_DAA]
Mejia: is scope to collection/use of online data?
16:12:36 [LMastria_DAA]
J Chester: are we talking onlinbe context only?
16:12:55 [jchester2]
zakim, mute me
16:12:55 [Zakim]
jchester2 should now be muted
16:13:07 [Zakim]
16:13:18 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire: turn to shane, but has heard this issue before re using data for online ads
16:13:21 [npdoty]
ack Wileys
16:13:31 [LMastria_DAA]
Shane: agrees to out of scope concept
16:13:31 [jchester2]
Lou. Sorry. Is this a question for me or are you scribing?
16:13:34 [rigo]
Zakim, call rigo-mobile
16:13:34 [Zakim]
ok, rigo; the call is being made
16:13:35 [Zakim]
16:13:50 [Chris_IAB]
Lou is scribing
16:13:58 [moneill2]
16:14:08 [jchester2]
Let's discuss the role of cookie syncing and other applications regarding append
16:14:17 [dsinger]
zakiom, who is making noise?
16:14:21 [schunter1]
Zakim, mute me
16:14:21 [Zakim]
schunter should now be muted
16:14:22 [LMastria_DAA]
Shane: offline...we don;t know the signal of the offline data
16:14:40 [peterswire]
16:15:09 [efelten]
Discussion of what is in/out of scope might benefit from consulting the group's charter, which defines the scope.
16:15:15 [jchester2]
it's not just real-time application only. we are calling for a permanent status unless otherwise notified.
16:15:31 [npdoty]
WileyS, would you also imagine that it covers data previously collected by a third-party with a DNT:1 signal? (doesn't have to be real-time append)
16:15:36 [jchester2]
zakim, unmute me
16:15:36 [Zakim]
jchester2 should no longer be muted
16:15:40 [Wileys]
16:15:50 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire: Shane asks a productive question of John and Jeff re data append
16:16:07 [Wileys]
Nick, we already agreed that DNT signals wouldn't require historical purges - although a 1st party may choose to do so
16:16:17 [LMastria_DAA]
Jeff Chester: 3rd party indicates that it received DNT signal
16:16:27 [LMastria_DAA]
still has to be worked out
16:16:28 [jchester2]
zakim, mute me
16:16:28 [Zakim]
jchester2 should now be muted
16:16:58 [npdoty]
WileyS, right, I just mean data that was collected by a third-party under a DNT:1 signal couldn't be shared later (much as it couldn't be shared in real-time)
16:17:29 [robsherman]
16:17:35 [Wileys]
Nick, agreed
16:17:36 [LMastria_DAA]
Chapell: 2 different uses are being described ... 1st party appends in a non-online scenario...2nd: at time user vists large publisher, checks w 3rd parties to bring more data to reg process. clarify?
16:18:02 [johnsimpson]
16:18:14 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire: scenario 2...if DNT signal is obeyed, then applies
16:18:48 [npdoty]
wait, but if I connect to a first party, and the first party makes a server-side request to a third-party to match up content customization data about that customer, the third party *isn't* receiving a DNT:1 signal from the user (because they don't communicate directly)
16:18:58 [Wileys]
You don't need a matching key - can pass in real-time via a web beacon
16:19:00 [npdoty]
ack Chapell
16:19:04 [npdoty]
ack moneill
16:19:13 [Chris_IAB]
to be clear, you couldn't use an IP address to link data together RELIABLY - ip address is more like a zip code than a specific address
16:19:20 [peterswire]
is Matthas on the call now?
16:19:27 [peterswire]
close q
16:19:33 [LMastria_DAA]
Mike o'Neill: need an identifier to link data together, possibly pass data w/o signal (out of band - ajax, etc)...
16:19:36 [WaltM_Comcast]
WaltM_Comcast has joined #DNT
16:19:36 [npdoty]
Zakim, please close the queue
16:19:36 [Zakim]
ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed
16:19:39 [Chris_IAB]
IP address is not a unique identifier
16:19:40 [tlr]
zakim, seen schunter?
16:19:40 [Zakim]
probably, tlr; schunter arrived 15 minutes ago
16:19:52 [Walter]
Chris_IAB: not reliable enough for a criminal prosecution, but often > 90% reliable
16:19:54 [npdoty]
ack robsherman
16:20:03 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.654.aaff
16:20:21 [Chris_IAB]
Walter, my research does not concur with 90% reliability.
16:20:28 [LMastria_DAA]
Robsherman: apologies for late...2 points: obliigations on 1st parties = a long settled issue and reopning may be is not append
16:20:52 [Chris_IAB]
for example, I'm at a hotel right now, sharing the same exact IP address with about 500 other users I'd guess
16:21:05 [LMastria_DAA]
Robsherman: language sweeps too broadly.
16:21:07 [Marc]
Marc has joined #dnt
16:21:36 [jchester2]
Rob: Explain further your example. Please
16:21:42 [LMastria_DAA]
RobSherman: taggings on FB would be unintended consequence and there are many more
16:21:46 [Chris_IAB]
the only thing I share with the 499 other guests, other than my IP address, is that we are all staying at a Hilton hotel-- but that's it
16:21:49 [npdoty]
I didn't see that implication, robsherman, that might be worth offline explanation
16:21:57 [Zakim]
16:21:58 [vincent]
Chris_IAB, true but you can clearly dissociate cases where there are 500 poeple behind an IP address and cases where there is only 1 person
16:22:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.654.aagg
16:23:10 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire: does DNT1 blocks appends in scenario mentioned by Shane...a long way from consensus on this
16:23:21 [npdoty]
robsherman: would be re-opening a closed issue, might require fundamentally rethinking the spec
16:23:25 [Chris_IAB]
vincent, it is POSSIBLE to do that, I agree, but it represents an edge case for RELIABLY identifying a unique user, not the norm-- industry does not use IP address (alone) to identify a unique user (for frequency capping, for example), because it is not at all reliable a proxy
16:23:44 [npdoty]
Zakim, aagg is [Nielsen]
16:23:44 [Zakim]
+[Nielsen]; got it
16:24:05 [LMastria_DAA]
Simpson: clarifying question: a lack of consensus re scenario 2 (realtime append)
16:24:17 [Chris_IAB]
so let's clearly differentiate-- ad industry doesn't do this-- we don't use IP address as a proxy for a unique, because it's highly unreliable in that respect
16:24:24 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire: trying to clarify by moving to a list of issues
16:24:26 [Walter]
16:24:37 [Walter]
anyway, sadly I have to drop out
16:24:41 [LMastria_DAA]
Item #3 on agenda (UI) is now up
16:24:46 [npdoty]
Topic: User Education and User Interface
16:24:47 [Zakim]
16:24:50 [Chris_IAB]
Walter, I get that they got this wrong in Europe :) (my POV of course)
16:25:00 [Zakim]
16:25:02 [vincent]
Chris_IAB, don't use it or don't use it *alone* ?
16:25:16 [Walter]
Chris_IAB: I used to think that too, but have changed my opinion. But have to run now.
16:25:17 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire: unclear how much this is TPE or Compliance spec...perhaps a convergence of the two
16:25:38 [LMastria_DAA]
Look att he 2 proposals and review
16:25:50 [LMastria_DAA]
Alan Chappll goes, then Adrian
16:25:53 [npdoty]
Zakim, please open the queue
16:25:53 [Zakim]
ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is open
16:25:55 [npdoty]
ack Chapell
16:26:02 [Chris_IAB]
vincent and walter, happy to take this discussion off-line if you like (please ping me at my email address)-- for now, I'd like to hear the current proposal
16:26:21 [Zakim]
16:26:37 [LMastria_DAA]
Chapell: goal=set guidelines 1: decision to ste DNT is a maeningful decison of the user
16:26:52 [peterswire]
16:26:53 [LMastria_DAA]
2: functionality matches what we've discussed
16:27:12 [LMastria_DAA]
Goal: user should be making an informed choice
16:27:31 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire:normative text...what would be biggest changes
16:27:33 [rigo]
16:28:10 [LMastria_DAA]
Chappel: point 1: clairfies that if extension or add on is used, then extention or add on is subject to this language
16:28:24 [npdoty]
I've previously recommended that we explicitly note that any other software that modifies a DNT header (like a plugin) should be held to the same requirements
16:28:28 [LMastria_DAA]
w/o this informed choice is not achieved
16:28:42 [Chris_IAB]
vincent- in advertising, the reliable proxy for a unique user is a cookie; let's discuss further offline
16:29:21 [LMastria_DAA]
accurate descriotion of DNT (including parties) and provide a link or decription re DNT functionality...button/link maybe same thing
16:29:22 [Wileys]
The DNT signal is broadly applied whereas exceptions are individually applied so therefore the bar should be higher for UAs to activate DNT. UAs without UIs would need to find solutions to ensure users understand what is occuring in other ways (such as during install time).
16:29:25 [adrianba]
zakim, unmute me
16:29:25 [Zakim]
adrianba should no longer be muted
16:29:33 [npdoty]
I think we agreed in Amsterdam to re-draft Shane's proposal to be less specific about "link"
16:29:34 [vincent]
Chris_IAB, sure, thx
16:29:40 [Chris_IAB]
Chapell, we could just define the word "link" to include other things, like buttons
16:29:50 [Wileys]
Nick, yes - I already sent that out
16:30:26 [peterswire]
16:30:26 [Chris_IAB]
Chapell, how about we call it an "object" or "web object"
16:30:28 [Wileys]
moved it to "reference" I believe and that fixed the issue
16:30:35 [LMastria_DAA]
Adrian: proposed alternative: button/link:prescribing link = too specific, some other UI to get to this information is fine...
16:30:37 [npdoty]
indeed, WileyS!, I linked to it last night: "The User Agent MUST make available explanatory text to provide more detailed information about DNT functionality within easy and direct access for the particular environment prior to DNT being enabled."
16:30:39 [Chris_IAB]
Chapell, or "rendered web object"
16:30:42 [justin]
WileyS, That is a different argument than you were making last year.
16:30:47 [efelten]
16:30:53 [Wileys]
Thank you Nick
16:30:53 [LMastria_DAA]
Should not necessarily a must question being posed
16:31:20 [Wileys]
Justin - it is more nuanced now - many called out this unbalanced situation and therefore my position has evolved.
16:31:20 [LMastria_DAA]
if education is an online link, then perhaps you cant access
16:31:29 [LMastria_DAA]
expalanatory text
16:31:32 [Zakim]
16:32:00 [Wileys]
Justin - I don't believe the delta should be large but I do believe the UA's requirements are "
16:32:03 [Wileys]
16:32:11 [schunter1]
16:32:34 [Zakim]
16:32:40 [rigo]
q- later
16:32:49 [Chris_IAB]
16:32:53 [LMastria_DAA]
broader question: Adrian: set of actions re user choices not solely scoped to exceptions?...or other UA?
16:33:18 [justin]
WileyS, I see. And I have pointed out the arguments about why the consent requirements should be stronger for the exceptions. I thought we had come to a good-faith compromise. This is disappointing.
16:33:50 [Chris_IAB]
adrainba- do you think we are CLOSE to an agreement with Chappell's proposal?
16:33:50 [LMastria_DAA]
Adrian: examples re add-in, non-normative text may be helpful for discussions, but the normative text is what will be used and good to have the simpler doc we're working with right now
16:33:54 [Wileys]
Justin, are you disagreeing that DNT set at the UA has broader application than an individual site exception?
16:34:14 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire: when would primer doc be written...before ort after last call?
16:34:59 [peterswire]
16:34:59 [rigo]
I will just more that there is symmetry between what you want the user to do for dnt1 and for dnt0
16:34:59 [rigo]
16:35:10 [rigo]
16:35:22 [LMastria_DAA] particular time, but as a user, you may want to read something ... example, XML schema was done after....just don't want to be doing at the time when normaitve doc is being debated
16:35:31 [johnsimpson]
16:35:40 [Chapell]
16:35:47 [Wileys]
Justin, when you look at a race-to-the-bottom, per Jonathan, this can be accomplished from both sides - so this is equal in my mind. Therefore we you step back from that position to the breadth of application, the UA is significantly broader than an individual site exception.
16:35:54 [Wileys]
16:36:01 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire: Doty email: talk about common resource (perhaps from w3c) re normative text?
16:36:16 [npdoty]
16:36:23 [dsinger]
16:36:25 [dsinger]
16:36:46 [LMastria_DAA]
Adrian: in support of resource, but not complete replacement for primer
16:36:46 [dwainberg]
16:37:05 [justin]
To the extent that an exception allows entities to track universally, I'm not sure the distinction is actually that meaningful.
16:37:10 [peterswire]
Zakim, please close Q
16:37:10 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'please close Q', peterswire
16:37:14 [npdoty]
Zakim, please close the queue
16:37:14 [Zakim]
ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed
16:37:22 [npdoty]
ack efelten
16:37:40 [Wileys]
Mobile apps can display web content
16:37:59 [dsinger]
email formatted in HTML can cause HTTP fetches, and is thus a UA, for example.
16:38:08 [Wileys]
Those UAs can be updated to provide this information prior to activating DNT. If they cannot, they should not attempt to activate DNT.
16:38:08 [Chris_IAB]
efelten, wouldn't it be fair then, if we need user consent, that those UAs that can't get it, don't do DNT?
16:38:15 [dsinger]
help viewers are often written using HTML, also
16:38:19 [fielding]
I believe we are talking about the UI of a configuration, not the UA itself
16:38:25 [justin]
WileyS, if you think that the consequence of turning on DNT is more important to the individual, then existing law would require great transparency obligations.
16:38:25 [Chris_IAB]
isn't that a fair requirement?
16:38:27 [LMastria_DAA]
Felten: many UAs not browsers...informed choice could be there, but caution
16:38:29 [Wileys]
16:38:32 [Mike_Zaneis]
Mike_Zaneis has joined #DNT
16:38:32 [npdoty]
ack schunter
16:38:42 [schunter1]
Zakim, unmute me
16:38:42 [Zakim]
schunter was not muted, schunter1
16:38:54 [schunter1]
ack schunter
16:39:05 [npdoty]
ack Chris_IAB
16:39:27 [Mike_Zaneis]
If a UA is incapable of presenting accurate choices to a user then that UA should not present DNT as an option, which is meant to be a user choice.
16:39:33 [Wileys]
+1 Chris
16:39:45 [Marc]
16:39:48 [schunter1]
Peter: We can continue this discussion until the full hour (folding in my exception discussion).
16:39:53 [LMastria_DAA]
Mejia: re Felten, express consent ... if UA can't get consent, then UA doesn't have to honor dnt
16:40:08 [peterswire]
Matthias: ok; please open the Q again
16:40:09 [npdoty]
efelten, is your point about not being very specific about UI? or that informed consent may just vary for different user agents?
16:40:17 [npdoty]
Zakim, please open the queue
16:40:17 [Zakim]
ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is open
16:40:21 [npdoty]
q+ schunter
16:40:47 [npdoty]
Zakim, please close the queue
16:40:47 [Zakim]
ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed
16:40:47 [justin]
The spec already says that you need to get the users consent to turn on DNT.
16:40:55 [justin]
16:41:24 [LMastria_DAA]
Felten: expressing caution that interaction can platform, long as user is informed
16:41:25 [fielding]
efelten, right, but we are not talking about the time of interaction -- we are talking about the UI for setting a non-default configuration option.
16:41:39 [efelten]
Alan's language does talk about time of interaction.
16:42:02 [peterswire]
nick -- please open the Q; matthias has provided more time for this
16:42:03 [npdoty]
+1 to justin, there's agreement (and existing text) about consent
16:42:11 [npdoty]
Zakim, please open the queue
16:42:11 [Zakim]
ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is open
16:42:12 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire: point out that spec = MUST, but DNT may need to be before
16:42:15 [peterswire]
16:42:40 [LMastria_DAA]
Felten: understand info being presented to user
16:42:59 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
16:43:08 [LMastria_DAA]
Swiree: follow up after today re Mejia and Felten re time 1 and time 2
16:43:09 [npdoty]
Zakim, mute schunter
16:43:09 [Zakim]
schunter should now be muted
16:43:10 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: hwest (1%), chapell (15%)
16:43:15 [npdoty]
ack Chapell
16:43:39 [fielding]
well, *how* something is presented is different from *what* needs to be presented -- the *how* can be just a list of non-normative examples
16:44:07 [dsinger]
+1 to fielding. we should talk about *what* not *how*
16:44:11 [Chris_IAB]
tech companies can ALWAYS find a way to message users :)
16:44:30 [LMastria_DAA]
Chappel: re Mejia: unfortunate if we created std that violates Privacy By Design...would be surprised whether regulators would be swayed by the unability of tech to present the choice
16:44:41 [peterswire]
16:44:49 [LMastria_DAA]
Chappel: Adrian: exception that swallows thwe rule
16:44:53 [Wileys]
David, the issue is strength of "what" which implies a "how" - there is important nuance here
16:44:54 [npdoty]
ack dsinger
16:45:41 [LMastria_DAA]
Singer: a browser help could explain DNT for members of what IAB members and others would like to explore more in the community and is a good idea
16:45:59 [LMastria_DAA]
Am cncerend about the how
16:46:04 [justin]
How is a legal question . . .
16:46:09 [LMastria_DAA]
What about a mail agent?
16:46:20 [Chris_IAB]
as an example, this concept of linking to an educational resource, is available today via the industry's icon-based self-regulatory program
16:46:25 [Zakim]
16:46:28 [Chris_IAB]
so I can tell you that it works :)
16:46:34 [Chapell]
one more thought re: non-normative language --- I'm not sure if Adrian is advocating getting rid of all non-normative language or just some. I may want to revisit the normative language if the group's consensus is to get rid of the non-normative language
16:46:48 [peterswire]
16:46:59 [Wileys]
Justin, there are equal parts "guidelines" and "laws" for "Hows"
16:47:20 [WaltM_Comcast]
WaltM_Comcast has joined #dnt
16:47:21 [Chapell]
16:47:25 [LMastria_DAA]
Singer: text such as accurately may be an issue
16:47:30 [Chris_IAB]
Chappell, please change "Guidelines" to "Rules" and keep "Must"
16:47:49 [Wileys]
We can and should include guidelines here - fair? If we want to only apply the legal bar - I'm fine with that across the board (UA DNT activation and site exceptions)
16:48:04 [npdoty]
ack dwainberg
16:48:32 [Chris_IAB]
+1 to David Wainberg
16:48:47 [LMastria_DAA]
Wainberg: Should vs Must: for the compliance, there many things which cannot be tested...
16:48:52 [dsinger]
I appreciate it is difficult to make 'must testability' a hard rule, but we should only contravene when…must
16:49:08 [peterswire]
16:49:09 [npdoty]
it may have been that Alan was using "guidelines" because the charter specifically notes that guidelines are in scope, while specifying UI would not be
16:49:18 [LMastria_DAA]
Wainberg: vcan't think of a real eexample where a user cannot be offered information about a choice
16:49:30 [johnsimpson]
16:49:59 [justin]
WileyS, Not entirely sure what you mean by guidelines, but I wouldn't mind at all examples saying, "here are ways you could do it." But I think you are probably right that legal bar is probably the right way ( I disagree with jmayer's proposed language on exceptions.
16:50:13 [LMastria_DAA]
Wainberg: perhaps separate guidelines for websites and broswers ....the convos need to remain together for the time being
16:50:17 [fielding]
DNT is not Privacy By Design. DNT is a user preference; it should not be mistaken for a security/privacy protocol that is actually designed to preserve privacy.
16:50:19 [Wileys]
Justin, okay.
16:50:25 [schunter1]
ack schunter
16:50:45 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire:Brookman wrote that extensivce interactions abouut UAs and users...correct?
16:50:48 [Chapell]
Yes, Nick --- that's why I used Guidelines. I'm happy to state "rules" if that is helpful
16:50:54 [Chris_IAB]
efelten, btw, the digital ad industry didn't use to have a mechanism to message users about OBA targeting; then the FTC and others asked us to do this, and we figured out a way to do it, in the tech. So I don't buy the idea that UAs won't adapt as well, if they want to set DNT.
16:50:58 [dsinger]
to fielding: agree, we cannot boil the ocean, we cannot fix every privacy issue online. this is about DNT, HTTP transactions, and people...
16:51:23 [peterswire]
Nick, please close the Q
16:51:31 [dsinger]
to justin and adrian: I strongly agree we should not agree text on what UA consent means without the same, or parallel text, on what site consent means
16:51:41 [LMastria_DAA]
Brookman: section 3-11, prescriptive for one and prescriptive for another
16:51:59 [Wileys]
Justin, this means industry will separately evaluate each UA's implementation and will decide per each if they will recognize that signal (and reply appropropriately in real-time). Issue 143 will need to be closed for this to finally be settled.
16:52:23 [npdoty]
Zakim, please close the queue
16:52:23 [Zakim]
ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed
16:52:44 [dsinger]
the incentive for sites to be 'economical' with their explanation and so on is strong.
16:52:44 [LMastria_DAA]
Brookman: leave to market and regulators to figure out
16:53:52 [npdoty]
Shane, wasn't that your point with 143? "As we've developed draft text for obtaining explicit, informed consent from a user for out-of-bound user granted exceptions, it's equally important that activation of a tracking preference be coupled with the same explicit, informed consent."
16:53:55 [LMastria_DAA]
Wainberg: how prescriptive we should be and whether requiremenets are equivalent on both sides...we should set these q's aside and perhaps bring the convos together in the futryure
16:54:01 [dsinger]
there is some commonality in requirements; but the consent/explanation for sites to get DNT:0 should be stronger (as this implies a weakening of privacy)
16:54:36 [peterswire]
16:54:46 [LMastria_DAA]
Matthias: ensuring exception alings w what user wants...we should have requirements, including what informed consent is and what education and choices should be discussed
16:55:19 [LMastria_DAA]
Matthias:implementation POV: should be balanced between broswers and sites
16:55:29 [Wileys]
Nick, my goal in 143 is that UAs that are setting DNT that are not the web browser but are sending the signal through the UA should name themselves in the DNT header (would require a change to the TPE).
16:55:30 [justin]
WileyS, I think I've been sold on the idea that servers should be able to send back some sort of signal that a stated preference is not being honored.
16:55:39 [Wileys]
Justin, great.
16:55:48 [Chris_IAB]
Matthias, ONLY 20-pages? ;)
16:55:52 [npdoty]
ack Chapell
16:56:14 [schunter1]
We can make it 50, too ;-) The global # of trees is the limit ;-)
16:56:14 [Chris_IAB]
+1 to Chappell
16:56:19 [LMastria_DAA]
Chappel: non-normative language: caution using it as a way to "kick the can" on open issues
16:56:47 [port_6665]
port_6665 has joined #dnt
16:56:47 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire: summary: developing a resource for visible link for explaining these issues
16:56:47 [schunter1]
My goal is to keep those requirements "as light as possible but no lighter".
16:56:55 [Chris_IAB]
schunter1, trees? bytes man, bytes :)
16:57:01 [efelten]
Most mobile apps are UAs, for example.
16:57:04 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire: UAs that don;t have browsers and we may need examples
16:57:30 [Chris_IAB]
efelten, why can't a mobile app that wants to set/send DNT, not message the user?
16:57:43 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire: there may be apps or other things where at Time 1 and a subsequent time when choices may no longer be able to be negotiated
16:57:47 [Chris_IAB]
in fact, the NTIA is trying to define this now, no?
16:57:56 [efelten]
Not all apps have an interactive UI. e.g. widget that displays current temperature in tiny type in upper corner of my phone's home screen.
16:58:10 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire: Aleecia circulated the tri-partie issue
16:58:13 [Wileys]
Ed, agreed - so each should include fair disclosure and user choice if they desire to support DNT- that's part of the price of admission to DNT.
16:58:24 [LMastria_DAA]
Felten to bring up examples in 1 week
16:58:37 [Chris_IAB]
efelten- those apps CAN have mechanisms; that they don't today, is simply the a reflection of the state that they don't have to, no?
16:58:44 [LMastria_DAA]
Timing issue...Felten to bring up examples as well
16:58:45 [Wileys]
Ed - they can - at install and at time of placement on the screen.
16:58:45 [dwainberg]
Ed, how would a user, in the case of such an app, set the DNT signal?
16:58:47 [fielding]
… so the configuration UI is important to our task of defining a protocol that is supposed to communicate the user's preference: the user's understanding of DNT needs to be compatible with what the specification says the preference communicates. I'd be happy with any UI that doesn't set DNT:1 by default and doesn't mislead users about the meaning of DNT.
16:58:48 [npdoty]
action: felten to draft examples regarding different UAs with different UI affordances
16:58:48 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-390 - Draft examples regarding different UAs with different UI affordances [on Edward Felten - due 2013-04-17].
16:59:03 [LMastria_DAA]
Swire to circle to Alleecia and Matthias re tr-Partite
16:59:25 [LMastria_DAA]
Chappel, Adrian, others...can we work on revisions
16:59:26 [Chapell]
I'll have some revisions - and would be happy to speak with Adrian
16:59:34 [adrianba]
happy to discuss
16:59:55 [Zakim]
17:00:02 [johnsimpson]
I'm curious,. Do we think that a UA must be able to grant exceptions to be compliant?
17:00:07 [npdoty]
action: Chapell to update UI/consent proposal (including discussion with Adrian)
17:00:08 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-391 - Update UI/consent proposal (including discussion with Adrian) [on Alan Chapell - due 2013-04-17].
17:00:34 [Zakim]
17:00:53 [peterswire]
17:00:54 [Zakim]
17:00:59 [npdoty]
scribenick: dwainberg
17:01:07 [dsinger]
zakim, who is making noise?
17:01:15 [dsinger]
17:01:15 [trackbot]
ISSUE-187 -- What is the right approach to exception handling? -- pending review
17:01:15 [trackbot]
17:01:19 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: peter? (12%), hwest (49%)
17:01:23 [npdoty]
Topic: Site Consent, 187
17:01:29 [npdoty]
Zakim, mute hwest
17:01:29 [Zakim]
hwest should now be muted
17:01:32 [dwainberg]
schunter1: Issue 187: what is the right approach to exceptions. Offline in email
17:01:41 [hwest]
Sorry about that - I'm muted on this end but clearly that's not working
17:01:46 [dwainberg]
... I discussed w/ Jonathan, and there is no more resistance to the new exceptions.
17:01:51 [Zakim]
17:02:02 [dwainberg]
... and the remaining concern is whether there is a race to the bottom for UX
17:02:13 [dwainberg]
... i.e. getting exceptions w/ minimal user interaction.
17:02:33 [dwainberg]
... so pare this down to "what conditions necessary for setting an exception."
17:03:09 [dwainberg]
... there is currently language in 6.3.1
17:03:16 [moneill2]
17:03:24 [npdoty]
Zakim, please open the queue
17:03:24 [Zakim]
ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is open
17:03:25 [dwainberg]
... basically says you must be reasonably certain the user wants the exception
17:03:27 [npdoty]
q+ moneill2
17:03:34 [dwainberg]
... Jonathan proposed 3 points.
17:04:07 [dwainberg]
Jonathan proposed these three requirements that refine this language and that I would like to gather feedback on:
17:04:07 [dwainberg]
1) Actual presentation: The choice mechanism MUST be actually presented to the user. It MUST NOT be on a linked page, such as a terms of service or privacy policy.
17:04:08 [dwainberg]
17:04:10 [dwainberg]
2) Independent choice: The choice mechanism MUST be presented independent of other choices. It MUST NOT be bundled with other user preferences.
17:04:12 [dwainberg]
17:04:14 [dwainberg]
3) No default permission: The choice mechanism MUST NOT have the user permission preference selected by default.
17:04:16 [dwainberg]
17:04:47 [schunter1]
17:04:54 [dsinger]
does #2 mean the site can't say "Give me an exception, or pay me for access?"
17:04:54 [schunter1]
ack moneill2
17:05:02 [JC]
17:05:17 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
17:05:20 [dwainberg]
moneill2: idea of "at the time". There are sites with large numbers of domains.
17:05:38 [dwainberg]
... and the problem of signaling consent across domains.
17:05:54 [npdoty]
17:05:57 [npdoty]
ack JC
17:06:00 [schunter1]
ack j
17:06:04 [npdoty]
Zakim, mute jchester2
17:06:04 [Zakim]
jchester2 should now be muted
17:06:05 [dsinger]
q+ to ask about #2
17:06:27 [dwainberg]
JC: responding to item 2, one can infer from that a company can't create a preferences page that has DNT as one item.
17:06:30 [adrianba]
seems like if we agree that sites are responsible for getting consent for exception then the mechanisms for doing so are part of the discussion earlier
17:06:40 [dwainberg]
... also possibility to consolidate mechanisms in the future.
17:06:53 [dwainberg]
... so would like us to reconsider point 2.
17:07:15 [dwainberg]
schunter1: so the point is it might be that we set all the privacy preferences in a package.
17:07:23 [npdoty]
Jonathan's "independent" requirement seems the only major difference from adrianba's text, I think
17:07:25 [schunter1]
ack ch
17:07:34 [dwainberg]
JC: yes, as just an example. Or, e.g., some browsers have a privacy page.
17:07:55 [dwainberg]
ChrisPedigoOPA: it seems like under this a user couldn't be presented with the choice as part of a sign up.
17:08:10 [dwainberg]
... I don't think it's reasonable to say you couldn't include in one page or one question.
17:08:37 [JC]
Item 3) covers that
17:08:40 [schunter1]
17:08:41 [dsinger]
zakim, who is making noise?
17:08:45 [schunter1]
ack d
17:08:45 [Zakim]
dsinger, you wanted to ask about #2
17:08:52 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.646.654.aaff (19%), schunter (5%), [Apple] (85%)
17:08:54 [dwainberg]
dsinger: reads #2 differently.
17:08:56 [npdoty]
yeah, that might be the motivation, if it's bundled with the terms of service, that might be objectionable to many of us
17:09:20 [JC]
Good point
17:09:22 [dwainberg]
... Read it as implying you couldn't have linked choices, e.g. if you don't agree to the exception you can't have ...
17:09:35 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
17:09:39 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
17:09:39 [schunter1]
17:09:42 [schunter1]
ack C
17:10:17 [dwainberg]
ChrisPedigoOPA: elsewhere in the compliance doc, I think we say it's ok to alter experience or refuse access if DNT is on.
17:10:34 [npdoty]
I agree that we have made that decision as a group
17:10:55 [npdoty]
17:11:02 [dwainberg]
schunter1: I think the purpose of item 3 is that there has to be an explicit choice.
17:11:36 [schunter1]
ack n
17:11:37 [dwainberg]
... so there has to be an exit point from the page that allows not to grant an exception.
17:11:44 [schunter1]
17:11:58 [dwainberg]
npdoty: one way we think about things you accept when you use a site. e.g. a TOS.
17:12:09 [Wileys]
With respect to #2, if the purpose of service is tracking and that's fairly well understood up-front, I don't see the need to "overly" state that DNT will not be recognized for this service. We're elevating DNT above all other considerations and that doesn't feel nuanced enough to match real-world situations.
17:12:11 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
17:12:21 [dwainberg]
... so having the choice in the TOS would undermine what we're trying to get at.
17:12:45 [npdoty]
we had previously proposed: "explicit, separate and informed consent"
17:12:48 [dwainberg]
schunter1: My opinion is this is somewhat too descriptive. Suggest language that you can only register an exception is you're sure the user wants an exception.
17:13:00 [dwainberg]
... then have lists of conditions that can be met.
17:13:22 [fielding]
explicit and informed consent is sufficient -- separate has nothing to do with it.
17:13:23 [schunter1]
17:13:24 [dwainberg]
... This is what you want to achieve, and then examples.
17:13:49 [schunter1]
17:13:52 [npdoty]
fielding, do you think Terms of Service would suffice "explicit and informed" consent?
17:13:53 [dwainberg]
schunter1: general question for the group: are these 3 items in scope? Are we ok, in generaly, with these kinds of requirements.
17:13:54 [npdoty]
ack schunter1
17:13:54 [schunter1]
ack sch
17:13:58 [schunter1]
ack Ch
17:14:03 [Mike_Zaneis]
Mike_Zaneis has joined #DNT
17:14:18 [npdoty]
ChrisPedigoOPA: I think we all agree it wouldn't be buried in the Terms of Service
17:14:19 [dwainberg]
ChrisPedigoOPA: We agree it wouldn't be buried in the TOS. But want to preserve the option to message consequences.
17:14:31 [dsinger]
alas, I am sure some sites will want to call the exception API with as little explanation as possible...
17:14:33 [npdoty]
+1, I agree on messaging consequences/alternatives
17:14:36 [fielding]
npdoty, that would depend on the TOS and the consent, not on its separateness
17:15:06 [dwainberg]
ChrisPedigoOPA: Principal approach would allow flexibility for different kinds of implementations.
17:15:11 [schunter1]
17:15:35 [schunter1]
Note that by getting less prescriptive here, I expect to also be less prescriptive for the browser UI requirements (schunter's balance principle)
17:15:47 [npdoty]
does someone want to take an action on issue-187? do we need a new proposal? or does adrianba's proposal cover this?
17:16:03 [hwest]
Zakim, who is making noise?
17:16:14 [Zakim]
hwest, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.646.654.aaff (9%), Chris_IAB? (18%)
17:16:30 [Chris_IAB]
Ice cream man! lol
17:16:48 [dsinger]
17:16:50 [npdoty]
schunter to propose closing 187, replacing with just collecting user input
17:16:50 [dwainberg]
schunter1: Formal action for me is to send proposal to close 187 and replace with another issue on ux.
17:17:06 [dwainberg]
(I can't hear dsinger)
17:17:15 [dwainberg]
17:17:25 [npdoty]
dsinger: connected to the previous conversation, should try to come to common text wherever we can
17:17:35 [dwainberg]
schunter1: preference to bucket both into a single conversation
17:17:48 [dsinger]
this issue and the UA explanation issue are linked; not completely common, as Alan says, but there may well be common concerns and/or text
17:18:00 [schunter1]
17:18:16 [Zakim]
17:18:25 [Chris_IAB]
am I the only one not hearing anything?
17:18:30 [johnsimpson]
Call breaking up..
17:18:30 [dwainberg]
I can hear nick.
17:18:31 [hwest]
Can hear you, Nick
17:18:34 [moneill2]
cant hear
17:18:44 [johnsimpson]
not hearing current speaker
17:18:49 [Zakim]
17:19:31 [Chris_IAB]
not audible
17:19:32 [schunter1]
ack d
17:19:40 [Chris_IAB]
broken conversation
17:19:42 [dwainberg]
dsinger: the approach of linking site consent and ua consent is right
17:19:45 [schunter1]
17:19:49 [Wileys]
David, agreed - they're linked but I believe the UA issue is larger due to its all encompassing application versus individual exceptions which can be tracked for compliance.
17:19:50 [Chris_IAB]
what was that Dsinger?
17:19:54 [Chris_IAB]
Mattias turned on DNT
17:19:57 [Zakim]
17:20:02 [schunter1]
17:20:05 [justin]
zakim, who is speaking in tongues?
17:20:05 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, justin.
17:20:07 [Zakim]
17:20:34 [Zakim]
17:20:46 [johnsimpson]
Does the group believe that a compliant UA must be able to grant exceptions?
17:21:06 [schunter1]
17:21:06 [dwainberg]
schunter1: would like to consider the discussion of choice collection together under one issue.
17:21:06 [dwainberg]
... question for both discussion
17:21:06 [dwainberg]
17:21:15 [dsinger]
to WileyS, LOL, I think the site issue is much larger due to the incentive to mis-behave and the larger number of sites
17:21:25 [dsinger]
let's see if Jonathan would like to make a revision, good idea.
17:21:29 [npdoty]
17:21:30 [schunter1]
ack d
17:21:51 [dsinger]
let's not *combine* but *link* the discussions
17:22:01 [dsinger]
note that they have related concepts
17:22:01 [Chapell]
Why are we combining - I object to combining at this time
17:22:04 [dsinger]
17:22:07 [Chapell]
+1 to DWainberg
17:22:09 [npdoty]
action: doty to check with Jonathan about revising consent requirements (would adrianba's text suffice?)
17:22:09 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-392 - Check with Jonathan about revising consent requirements (would adrianba's text suffice?) [on Nick Doty - due 2013-04-17].
17:22:21 [fielding]
certainly OOB consent is not going to be defined by this standard
17:22:59 [npdoty]
Topic: next Working Draft
17:23:05 [Wileys]
Matthias, we need to close on Issue-143 soon
17:23:07 [npdoty]
q+ to explain on drafts
17:23:08 [dwainberg]
dwainberg: should have separate discussions for consent in UA vs server
17:23:19 [Zakim]
17:23:31 [dwainberg]
schunter1: next steps work on final edits, next call go over the document, and get to a working draft ready to be published.
17:23:33 [adrianba]
17:23:41 [npdoty]
17:23:48 [dsinger]
17:23:49 [johnsimpson]
Do we plan to publish another Compliance working draft?
17:23:59 [dwainberg]
schunter1: Restructuring the response indicators. What is the best structure to communicate tracking status.
17:24:03 [fielding]
17:24:04 [dsinger]
…apologizes, I have some pending edits that are not done...
17:24:16 [fielding]
17:24:22 [dwainberg]
... I think the consensus is 3 pieces
17:24:26 [Wileys]
Roy, I don't want to bloat the DNT header signal but I'd like to ensure 3rd party UAs to the web browser UA are naming themselves when activating DNT. Thoughts on how to approach this problem?
17:24:28 [npdoty]
regarding publishing drafts: I may have mentioned this only among the editors, we are trying to satisfy our process requirements by publishing snapshot working drafts of the documents
17:24:30 [fielding]
17:24:38 [dwainberg]
... who you are, whether you're claiming exceptions, and then if you're "under construction"
17:24:47 [npdoty]
Topic: Response Indicators
17:25:02 [dwainberg]
dsinger: Question is "am I designed to operate as an X party" is orthogonal to whether have consent
17:25:15 [fielding]
I said they are NOT orthogonal and explained why on list
17:25:25 [dwainberg]
... replace with a C, meaning I have consent. If they were append, rather than replacements...
17:25:37 [dwainberg]
... but it's minor, don't need to rathole on it.
17:26:11 [dwainberg]
fielding: Don't understand how matthias got consent. 1 and 3 say you are compliant, so not orthogonal.
17:26:32 [dwainberg]
... so you can't say 3 and 1 and C at the same time. They're separate answers.
17:26:46 [dwainberg]
... if you don't understand what the consent is about you have to go to the control link.
17:26:57 [npdoty]
is "C" not intended to refer to consent to things otherwise prohibited by Compliance?
17:27:13 [moneill2]
17:27:17 [npdoty]
17:27:28 [dsinger]
Let's not rathole. Roy's point is a consequence of the way the text is currently written, and we could change it. I can drop it.
17:27:37 [dwainberg]
schunter1: we have a disagreement there we won't resolve in 3 mins.
17:29:04 [dwainberg]
fielding: if you're say you're doing something differently from the, e.g. 1st party requirements, then you're not following those requirements.
17:29:23 [dwainberg]
schunter1: continue this discussion offline
17:29:36 [dsinger]
I don't care enough to spend a lot of time on it, though, and I don't want to waste the group's time
17:29:44 [dsinger]
17:29:46 [npdoty]
17:29:49 [dsinger]
zakim, who is on the call?
17:29:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see efelten, npdoty, LMastria_DAA, dwainberg, Yianni? (muted), peter?, Fielding, Joanne, WileyS, vinay, Chris_IAB?, jchester2 (muted), [Apple], johnsimpson, hwest
17:29:52 [Zakim]
... (muted), chapell, hefferjr, David_MacMillan, adrianba, ninjamarnau, Brooks, moneill2?, [FTC], Chris_Pedigo, vincent, [Microsoft], +1.646.654.aaff, [Microsoft.a], schunter
17:29:52 [Zakim]
LMastria_DAA has marcg
17:29:52 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
17:30:03 [Zakim]
17:30:04 [Zakim]
17:30:04 [Zakim]
17:30:06 [Zakim]
17:30:06 [Zakim]
17:30:07 [Zakim]
17:30:07 [Zakim]
17:30:08 [Zakim]
17:30:08 [Zakim]
17:30:08 [Zakim]
17:30:08 [Zakim]
- +1.646.654.aaff
17:30:09 [Zakim]
17:30:09 [Zakim]
17:30:11 [Zakim]
17:30:11 [Zakim]
17:30:12 [Zakim]
17:30:12 [Zakim]
17:30:12 [Zakim]
17:30:13 [Zakim]
17:30:13 [Zakim]
17:30:14 [npdoty]
Zakim, please list the attendees
17:30:14 [hwest]
hwest has left #dnt
17:30:14 [Zakim]
17:30:14 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'please list the attendees', npdoty
17:30:14 [Zakim]
17:30:15 [Zakim]
17:30:15 [Zakim]
17:30:16 [Zakim]
17:30:21 [npdoty]
Zakim, list attendees
17:30:21 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been efelten, npdoty, +1.202.344.aaaa, dwainberg, Thomas, +1.202.587.aabb, +1.240.994.aacc, mikez, Fielding, marcg, Amy_Colando, Joanne,
17:30:22 [tlr]
zakim, list participants
17:30:24 [Zakim]
... samsilberman, Rigo, BerinSzoka, WileyS, WaltM_Comcast, JeffWilson, vinay, RichardWeaver, [CDT], jchester2, Chris_IAB?, dsinger, johnsimpson, hwest, chapell, hefferjr, schunter,
17:30:24 [Zakim]
... +1.650.465.aadd, adrianba, +49.431.98.aaee, ninjamarnau, Brooks, David_MacMillan, Walter, moneill2?, [FTC], Chris_Pedigo, vincent, robsherman, [Microsoft], +1.646.654.aaff,
17:30:24 [Zakim]
... +1.646.654.aagg, [Nielsen]
17:30:27 [peterswire]
peterswire has left #dnt
17:30:28 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been efelten, npdoty, +1.202.344.aaaa, dwainberg, Thomas, +1.202.587.aabb, +1.240.994.aacc, mikez, Fielding, marcg, Amy_Colando, Joanne,
17:30:28 [Zakim]
... samsilberman, Rigo, BerinSzoka, WileyS, WaltM_Comcast, JeffWilson, vinay, RichardWeaver, [CDT], jchester2, Chris_IAB?, dsinger, johnsimpson, hwest, chapell, hefferjr, schunter,
17:30:33 [Zakim]
... +1.650.465.aadd, adrianba, +49.431.98.aaee, ninjamarnau, Brooks, David_MacMillan, Walter, moneill2?, [FTC], Chris_Pedigo, vincent, robsherman, [Microsoft], +1.646.654.aaff,
17:30:33 [Zakim]
... +1.646.654.aagg, [Nielsen]
17:30:33 [Zakim]
17:30:35 [npdoty]
rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:30:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate npdoty
17:30:40 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has left #dnt
17:31:16 [Zakim]
17:31:21 [Zakim]
17:36:22 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, hwest, in T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
17:36:23 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:36:23 [Zakim]
Attendees were efelten, npdoty, +1.202.344.aaaa, dwainberg, Thomas, +1.202.587.aabb, +1.240.994.aacc, mikez, Fielding, marcg, Amy_Colando, Joanne, samsilberman, Rigo, BerinSzoka,
17:36:24 [Zakim]
... WileyS, WaltM_Comcast, JeffWilson, vinay, RichardWeaver, [CDT], jchester2, Chris_IAB?, dsinger, johnsimpson, hwest, chapell, hefferjr, schunter, +1.650.465.aadd, adrianba,
17:36:24 [Zakim]
... +49.431.98.aaee, ninjamarnau, Brooks, David_MacMillan, Walter, moneill2?, [FTC], Chris_Pedigo, vincent, robsherman, [Microsoft], +1.646.654.aaff, +1.646.654.aagg, [Nielsen]
17:36:34 [npdoty]
Zakim, bye
17:36:34 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #dnt
17:36:36 [npdoty]
rrsagent, bye
17:36:36 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in :
17:36:36 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: felten to draft examples regarding different UAs with different UI affordances [1]
17:36:36 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:36:36 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Chapell to update UI/consent proposal (including discussion with Adrian) [2]
17:36:36 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:36:36 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: doty to check with Jonathan about revising consent requirements (would adrianba's text suffice?) [3]
17:36:36 [RRSAgent]
recorded in