15:58:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:58:26 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/04/17-dnt-irc
15:58:29 <npdoty> rrsagent, please make logs public
15:58:31 <dwainberg> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:58:31 <Zakim> sorry, dwainberg, I don't know what conference this is
15:58:32 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Yianni, Richard_comScore, Zakim, Chris_IAB, dwainberg, jchester2, rigo, eberkower, npdoty, efelten, schunter, adrianba, tlr, hober, mischat, wseltzer,
15:58:32 <Zakim> ... trackbot
15:58:44 <npdoty> Zakim, this is TRACK
15:58:45 <Zakim> ok, npdoty; that matches T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
15:58:46 <Zakim> +eberkower
15:58:48 <Chris_IAB> just joined the call via a private number
15:58:50 <Zakim> +jchester2
15:58:51 <jchester2> zakim, mute me
15:58:52 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
15:59:05 <Zakim> +Yianni
15:59:16 <Yianni> Zakim, mute me
15:59:16 <Zakim> Yianni should now be muted
15:59:29 <peterswire> peterswire has joined #dnt
15:59:54 <JC> JC has joined #DNT
16:00:21 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
16:00:23 <Zakim> + +44.772.301.aacc
16:00:27 <phildpearce> phildpearce has joined #dnt
16:00:41 <vinay> vinay has joined #dnt
16:00:43 <Zakim> +npdoty
16:00:50 <hefferjr> hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:00:51 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:00:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P2, +1.646.845.aaaa, +1.609.258.aabb, ??P10, eberkower, jchester2 (muted), Yianni (muted), +44.772.301.aacc, npdoty
16:00:55 <Zakim> + +1.404.385.aadd
16:00:56 <Zakim> +Fielding
16:01:04 <npdoty> Zakim, ??P10 may be Chris_IAB
16:01:05 <Zakim> +Chris_IAB?; got it
16:01:12 <Zakim> + +1.917.934.aaee
16:01:16 <Zakim> +JeffWilson
16:01:17 <vinay> zakim, aaee is vinay
16:01:17 <Zakim> +vinay; got it
16:01:19 <Zakim> + +1.202.222.aaff
16:01:23 <justin> justin has joined #dnt
16:01:24 <Zakim> +RichardWeaver
16:01:27 <WaltM_Comcast> WaltM_Comcast has joined #DNT
16:01:34 <phildpearce> philpearce: +44.772.301
16:01:40 <npdoty> Zakim, aacc is phildpearce
16:01:40 <Zakim> +phildpearce; got it
16:01:58 <dwainberg> zakim, aaaa is dwainberg
16:01:58 <Zakim> +dwainberg; got it
16:02:06 <schunter> Zakim, ??P2 is schunter
16:02:06 <Zakim> +schunter; got it
16:02:21 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
16:02:25 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
16:02:38 <prestia> prestia has joined #dnt
16:02:47 <sidstamm> sidstamm has joined #dnt
16:02:48 <npdoty> Zakim, please choose a volunteer
16:02:48 <Zakim> I don't understand 'please choose a volunteer', npdoty
16:02:49 <Zakim> +[CDT]
16:02:53 <rvaneijk> rvaneijk has joined #dnt
16:02:53 <npdoty> Zakim, pick a victim
16:02:54 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jchester2 (muted)
16:02:58 <sidstamm> Zakim, Mozilla has sidstamm
16:02:58 <Zakim> +sidstamm; got it
16:03:00 <moneill2> moneill2 has joined #dnt
16:03:01 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:03:06 <adrianba> zakim, [Microsoft] is me
16:03:06 <Zakim> +adrianba; got it
16:03:11 <Zakim> + +33.6.50.34.aagg
16:03:11 <adrianba> zakim, mute me
16:03:12 <Zakim> adrianba should now be muted
16:03:13 <jchester2> I can't do it today, but next week ok
16:03:15 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:03:17 <npdoty> Zakim, pick a victim
16:03:17 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose vinay
16:03:25 <vincent> zakim, +aagg is vincent
16:03:25 <Zakim> sorry, vincent, I do not recognize a party named '+aagg'
16:03:32 <vincent> zakim, aagg is vincent
16:03:32 <Zakim> +vincent; got it
16:03:33 <npdoty> vinay, can you scribe today?
16:03:34 <vinay> i can't scribe today.  i need to drop soon
16:03:38 <npdoty> Zakim, pick a victim
16:03:38 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose +1.202.222.aaff
16:03:39 <vinay> (that, and i scribed 3 weeks ago)
16:03:41 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:03:41 <Zakim> + +1.215.480.aahh
16:03:41 <npdoty> Zakim, pick a victim
16:03:42 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jchester2 (muted)
16:03:44 <Zakim> +Aleecia
16:03:45 <Zakim> + +31.65.141.aaii
16:03:45 <npdoty> Zakim, pick a victim
16:03:46 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose +1.404.385.aadd
16:03:49 <npdoty> Zakim, pick a victim
16:03:49 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose vincent
16:03:53 <rvaneijk> Zakim, aaii is me
16:03:53 <Zakim> +rvaneijk; got it
16:03:56 <vincent> sure
16:03:59 <moneill2> zakim, [IPCaller] is me
16:03:59 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
16:04:07 <npdoty> scribenick: vincent
16:04:07 <kj> kj has joined #dnt
16:04:07 <David_MacMillan> David_MacMillan has joined #dnt
16:04:21 <Zakim> + +1.202.787.aajj
16:04:25 <WaltM_Comcast> Zakim, [215480] is WaltM_Comcast
16:04:25 <Zakim> sorry, WaltM_Comcast, I do not recognize a party named '[215480]'
16:04:27 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see schunter, dwainberg, +1.609.258.aabb, Chris_IAB?, eberkower, jchester2 (muted), Yianni (muted), phildpearce, npdoty, +1.404.385.aadd, Fielding, vinay,
16:04:31 <Zakim> ... JeffWilson, +1.202.222.aaff, RichardWeaver, [Mozilla], [CDT], adrianba (muted), vincent, [Microsoft], moneill2, +1.215.480.aahh, rvaneijk, Aleecia, +1.202.787.aajj
16:04:31 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:04:35 <npdoty> Zakim, aabb may be efelten
16:04:35 <Zakim> +efelten?; got it
16:04:41 <npdoty> Zakim, aahh is WaltM_Comcast
16:04:41 <Zakim> +WaltM_Comcast; got it
16:04:51 <Zakim> +hefferjr
16:04:52 <vincent> schunter: first task is going through working draft and identify change needed before publication
16:05:05 <vincent> ... should be aligned with issue status
16:05:08 <prestia> prestia has joined #dnt
16:05:15 <vincent> ... shoudl reflect current state of the discussion
16:05:27 <Zakim> +SusanIsrael
16:05:28 <sisrae000> sisrae000 has joined #dnt
16:05:30 <vincent> ... quickly go through the document
16:05:39 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
16:05:43 <Zakim> + +1.202.347.aakk
16:05:51 <kulick> kulick has joined #dnt
16:05:53 <Zakim> +Brooks
16:05:56 <prestia> Zakim, aakk is prestia
16:05:56 <Zakim> +prestia; got it
16:06:12 <jmayer> jmayer has joined #dnt
16:06:18 <Zakim> + +1.650.465.aall
16:06:21 <npdoty> topic: TPE review for working draft
16:06:22 <Zakim> + +1.408.836.aamm
16:06:24 <vincent> schunter: going chapter by chapter, say stop to go to sub-chapter
16:06:30 <Zakim> +Chris_Pedigo
16:06:33 <npdoty> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#introduction
16:06:33 <schunter> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html
16:06:34 <susanisrael> susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:06:36 <kulick> Zakim: aamm is kulick
16:06:43 <ChrisPedigoOPA> ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:06:44 <npdoty> Zakim, aamm is kulick
16:06:44 <Zakim> +kulick; got it
16:06:58 <Zakim> +Rigo
16:07:11 <David_MacMillan> Zakim, aall is David_MacMillan
16:07:11 <Zakim> +David_MacMillan; got it
16:07:16 <Chapell> Chapell has joined #DNT
16:07:25 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Mayer
16:07:36 <dwainberg> q+
16:07:41 <vincent> aleecia: ok with introduction, jsut one question around the first paragraph; not sure the language capture what we're doing
16:07:45 <JamesB> JamesB has joined #dnt
16:07:49 <ninjamarnau> ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
16:08:00 <Zakim> + +49.431.98.aann
16:08:04 <npdoty> q+ to ask isn't that about exceptions?
16:08:15 <ninjamarnau> Zakim, aann is ninjamarnau
16:08:15 <Zakim> +ninjamarnau; got it
16:08:16 <rigo> zakim, aann is Ninja
16:08:16 <Zakim> sorry, rigo, I do not recognize a party named 'aann'
16:08:29 <Zakim> + +1.646.666.aaoo
16:08:34 <vincent> ... is IE10 still compliant with DNT, not clear based on the text
16:08:41 <Zakim> -[CDT]
16:08:47 <npdoty> I don't think we're asking for consensus on text to publish a Working Draft
16:08:50 <Chapell> zakim, aaoo is Chapell
16:08:50 <Zakim> +Chapell; got it
16:08:53 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:09:02 <rvaneijk> q+
16:09:03 <jmayer> +q
16:09:05 <Zakim> -David_MacMillan
16:09:07 <vincent> schunter: publishing does not mean that we have consensus on all point
16:09:15 <Zakim> +[CDT]
16:09:17 <vincent> ... are you ok with publishing it as a WD
16:09:24 <npdoty> q-
16:09:26 <Zakim> + +1.650.365.aapp
16:09:34 <vincent> aleecia: ok with publishing it as a working draft
16:09:41 <David_MacMillan> Zakim, aapp is David_MacMillan
16:09:41 <Zakim> +David_MacMillan; got it
16:09:46 <jchester2> +1 Aleecia's points
16:09:54 <vincent> ... but want to remark that there is no consesnus and should be reflected
16:09:55 <npdoty> I promise to remember that publishing a Working Draft does not mean group consensus
16:10:26 <Joanne> Joanne has joined #DNT
16:10:46 <vincent> ... would be happy to help on the language, maybe we should add a note telling that there is not a consensu on everything yet
16:10:55 <npdoty> q+ to review Status of the Document
16:10:59 <vincent> ... the rest of it, was quite happy with the introduction
16:11:07 <Zakim> +johnsimpson
16:11:16 <adrianba> "Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress."
16:11:23 <Zakim> +Joanne
16:11:33 <johnsimpson> q?
16:11:34 <vincent> schunter: I changed my mind, it's an important point, if we put a disclamer we won't progress
16:11:48 <Chapell> +1 to Adrian's sentance
16:11:59 <vincent> ... we'd better publish the document and say that when there are still open issues there is no consensus
16:12:01 <npdoty> +1, thanks Adrian
16:12:09 <cOlsen> cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:12:30 <vincent> ... we put a note saying that there is not a consensus on the paragraph
16:12:39 <Zakim> +[FTC]
16:12:40 <npdoty> ack dwainberg
16:13:11 <vincent> dwainberg: raised issues with this previouosly, and had to wait until the discussion on the introduction
16:13:14 <npdoty> I don't think it's feasible to indicate every possible concern about every possible sentence depending on every possible outcome of the Working Group
16:13:21 <fielding> I have difficulty adding visual distinctions evry time a single member of the group has a difference of opinion … having issue markers where an issue has been raised is fine.
16:13:45 <Zakim> +hwest
16:13:50 <hwest> hwest has joined #dnt
16:14:10 <vincent> ... if we don't create an issue to flag it as open, it will make it harder to come back on it later
16:14:20 <vincent> ... reflect the introduction as needing revision
16:14:24 <schunter> q?
16:14:31 <vincent> schunter: other question
16:14:45 <schunter> ack rv
16:15:03 <npdoty> in the Compliance document the editors have replaced the Introduction with a note explicitly noting that we'll have to come back to introductions
16:15:17 <johnsimpson> q?
16:15:24 <schunter> ack jmayer
16:15:25 <npdoty> we also note ISSUE 136 (regarding dependencies) in the TPE introduction
16:15:30 <vincent> xxx: it will be much cleaner to have an introduciton in the compliance doc and leave it empty in the TPE
16:15:47 <rvaneijk> s/xxx/rvaneijk/
16:16:34 <adrianba> q+
16:16:35 <vincent> jmayer: 1 what the position of the next draft would be, caution on pushing to produce a document, not many consensus since last document
16:16:45 <rvaneijk> my point is not to have an introduction in the TPE due to 1. issue 136, which is about the inter dependencies., 2. Compliance doc deals with what DNT means. (This specification defines the meaning of a Do Not Track (DNT) preference and sets out practices for websites to comply with this preference. )
16:17:01 <vincent> ... not real change, concerned that people might be misunderstanding what we're adding
16:17:45 <johnsimpson> q?
16:17:53 <vincent> ... just try to make it clear that all the document might change, from the last paragraph of the introduction to the specifics
16:18:11 <vincent> ... unconfortable puyblishing another working draft
16:18:20 <Chris_IAB> Wow
16:18:53 <vincent> schunter: I'll go through the doc and would like to find the open issues and find how close we are
16:19:26 <vincent> ... I believe we made good progress with this document, the process is important
16:19:36 <schunter> q?
16:19:38 <fielding> The last WD was 2 October 2012. We are required to publish every three months.
16:19:38 <vincent> ... I hope we can publish a working draft
16:19:40 <schunter> ack npdoty
16:19:41 <Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to review Status of the Document
16:20:40 <vincent> npdoty: Working draft is a snapchot of the progress, showing where we are
16:21:02 <vincent> ... does not mean that there is a consensus
16:21:09 <jchester2> We should specify in each section where there is no consensus
16:21:28 <vincent> ... if people want to highlight where there are concern, would be happy to help with that
16:21:32 <fielding> cvs diff -u -r 1.170 tracking-dnt.html
16:22:39 <schunter> q?
16:22:43 <adrianba> zakim, unmute me
16:22:43 <Zakim> adrianba should no longer be muted
16:22:44 <schunter> ack ad
16:22:48 <vincent> ... I don't think it is usefull to mention where there is no consensus, would make the document unreadable (did I capture that ?)
16:22:52 <adrianba> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#three-month-rule
16:23:17 <vincent> adrianba: will echo what npdoty, we have to publish a working draft every 3 months to show tha tthe group is alive
16:23:33 <vincent> ... we should not be afraid about publishing a document
16:23:35 <Zakim> -Aleecia
16:24:53 <vincent> ... in many WG, the draft is prpose by the editor without review of the working group
16:24:59 <jchester2> This is a consenus process and the editors must reflect the differences in the group.
16:25:41 <Zakim> +Aleecia
16:26:03 <vincent> schunter: if there is a big issue with a section then it should be mark in the document, no need to look at the consensus in detail
16:26:06 <adrianba> zakim, mute me
16:26:06 <Zakim> adrianba should now be muted
16:26:13 <vincent> ... the introduction need some revision
16:26:18 <vincent> now discussion section 2
16:26:21 <vincent> ... no concern
16:26:26 <phildpearce> Suggestion/Analogy: Regulators update their privacy policies frequently based on feedback and new information to "fine tune"...thus TPE is likely to be updated based on public feedback: http://www.changedetection.com/log/uk/gov/ico/privacy_statement_log.html
16:26:30 <jmayer> +q
16:26:38 <vincent> section 3 : determin user preference, concern or open issue about that section
16:26:44 <schunter> q?
16:26:54 <Chris_IAB> May I suggest that the W3C issue a "status update" document to the world-- at least to those who are following this initiative
16:27:08 <Chris_IAB> that may take some "pressure" off of the working group to publish
16:27:28 <johnsimpson> q+
16:27:42 <jmayer> The working group shouldn't publish documents just to evade pressure. It should actually make progress.
16:27:46 <npdoty> the protocol is not enabled, even in Europe, when no signal is being sent
16:27:48 <fielding> sent to mailing list 3 minutes ago
16:28:05 <vincent> aleecia: this section need to be reworked, section reflect what would happen in the US but not in the EU
16:28:10 <johnsimpson> q?
16:28:13 <Chris_IAB> I disagree that we are not making progress
16:28:15 <hefferjr> q+
16:28:26 <vincent> ... reflect that in different section of the world not sending DNT might have a different meaning
16:29:01 <johnsimpson> q?
16:29:02 <vincent> schunter: suggestion is to synchronize it with the compliance spec
16:29:10 <rvaneijk> yes, issue 136 makes sense to apply to section 3 as well
16:29:14 <vincent> issue-136?
16:29:14 <trackbot> ISSUE-136 -- Resolve dependencies of the TPE on the compliance specification -- open
16:29:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/136
16:29:15 <npdoty> note: regarding section 3, note possible inconsistency with the compliance spec regarding enabled/not-enabled and europe
16:29:29 <Zakim> +??P65
16:29:43 <Zakim> -npdoty
16:29:45 <laurengelman> laurengelman has joined #dnt
16:29:50 <rvaneijk> Issue 136 also applies to section 1, ergo it is better to move the introduction as a whole to the compliance doc.
16:29:50 <Chris_IAB> wow, dial-up!
16:29:58 <rigo> zakim, who is making noise?
16:30:05 <JC> I hear nothing
16:30:10 <Zakim> rigo, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Aleecia (79%), Fielding (56%), ??P65 (4%), Rigo (24%)
16:30:12 <sidstamm> zakim, mute P65
16:30:12 <Zakim> sorry, sidstamm, I do not know which phone connection belongs to P65
16:30:17 <sidstamm> zakim, mute ??P65
16:30:17 <Zakim> ??P65 should now be muted
16:30:21 <sidstamm> augh
16:30:27 <rigo> zakim, drop ??P65
16:30:27 <Zakim> ??P65 is being disconnected
16:30:29 <Zakim> -??P65
16:30:30 <johnsimpson> q?
16:30:33 <peterswire> is anyone hearing anything?
16:30:36 <Zakim> +npdoty
16:30:36 <sidstamm> I am
16:30:37 <rigo> zakim, who is making noise?
16:30:37 <hefferjr> silence
16:30:43 <Zakim> -npdoty
16:30:47 <Zakim> rigo, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (4%), +1.404.385.aadd (25%), Fielding (26%), +1.202.787.aajj (5%), Rigo (24%)
16:30:47 <sidstamm> okay, it gave up
16:30:50 <Chris_IAB> that sound is a UA that doesn't have a good UI :)
16:30:51 <fielding> hmm … we're back
16:30:59 <BillScannell> BillScannell has joined #dnt
16:31:12 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
16:31:14 <rigo> zakim, mute me
16:31:14 <Zakim> Rigo should now be muted
16:31:22 <vincent> schunter: in Section, I'm gonna mark issue 136
16:31:24 <rigo> q?
16:31:24 <hefferjr> q-
16:31:26 <johnsimpson> q?
16:31:29 <schunter> q?ack jm
16:31:32 <schunter> ack jm
16:31:33 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:31:37 <vincent> .. anything else on section 3?
16:31:52 <BillScannell> Our robot overlords have completed the sending of their orders.
16:31:54 <Zakim> + +1.415.627.aaqq
16:31:55 <vincent> jmayer: don't like the  mode of conversation
16:32:05 <Zakim> +npdoty
16:32:12 <fielding> I have no posted issues on this section.  As such, there are no objections.
16:32:23 <vincent> ... I don't think we've made progress on section 3
16:33:03 <laurengelman> Zakim,  ??aaqq is laurengelman
16:33:03 <Zakim> sorry, laurengelman, I do not recognize a party named '??aaqq'
16:33:08 <vincent> ... on the specific of the section, I would not be in favor of publishing a working draft without a warning
16:33:13 <npdoty> Zakim, aaqq is laurengelman
16:33:13 <Zakim> +laurengelman; got it
16:33:26 <laurengelman> thanks nick!
16:33:28 <vincent> ... last working draft we saw comanies taking action based on what was on the text
16:33:42 <npdoty> Zakim, aadd may be peterswire
16:33:42 <Zakim> +peterswire?; got it
16:33:55 <fielding> There are no changes to this section in over a year, IIRC.
16:33:56 <hefferjr> q+
16:33:58 <Chapell> +1 to Jonathan's general concern. However, I'm not sure how to address? Any suggestions?
16:34:06 <vincent> ... I would want to see a very clear disclamer so there can not be misunderstading about consensus
16:34:28 <fielding> There are no open issues on this section.
16:34:47 <npdoty> we can highlight document-wide that there is not general agreement. are there existing specific issues regarding this section? (as Roy noted, we closed issues on this section.)
16:34:48 <vincent> schunter: it's a working draft and I'd like to understand what are the concern, we have agreement that DNT should reflect user preference
16:35:01 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:35:10 <johnsimpson> q?
16:35:12 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (67%)
16:35:16 <rigo> how can browser be compliant with something that isn't even a working draft?
16:35:31 <npdoty> we don't generally include implementation tests for all major browsers in public working drafts
16:35:49 <adrianba> this is a question about objections to publish a WD knowing that it is a work in progress - we already published this text as a WD - we know it isn't done but that shouldn't prevent publishing
16:35:49 <kj> kj has joined #dnt
16:35:58 <rigo> zakim, unmute me
16:35:58 <Zakim> Rigo should no longer be muted
16:36:34 <vincent> rigo: we're are here to define a target implementation
16:36:46 <rvaneijk> q+
16:37:04 <vincent> aleecia: reading the text I'd think that IE 10 is compliant
16:37:19 <rigo> +1 to try for better text
16:37:41 <npdoty> +1 that better text is a good general goal
16:37:48 <johnsimpson> q?
16:37:55 <vincent> ... having a lot of ambiguity such as that people in the group disagree in the meaning, that's not ok
16:37:56 <jmayer> It sounds like Aleecia and I are on the same page: we do not have agreement on how this current text about user agent DNT choice applies to the major browsers currently in use.
16:38:07 <rvaneijk> Matthias, I want to comment, we are not ready to move on yet
16:38:09 <rvaneijk> Matthias, I want to comment, we are not ready to move on yet
16:38:22 <vincent> schunter: text is too vague, let take a not and move on
16:38:33 <johnsimpson> has it gone dead?
16:38:37 <hefferjr> silence
16:38:42 <johnsimpson> ?
16:38:43 <vincent> q?
16:38:44 <hefferjr> back, kind of?
16:38:53 <npdoty> ack johnsimpson
16:39:19 <vincent> johnsimpson: there was a lot of discussion about wether or not a UA should propose 3 choices
16:39:41 <fielding> john is referring to third para of sec 3
16:39:49 <vincent> ... I recall a formal objection to that standard and that making it's way through the W3C process and that should be noted in the document
16:39:58 <schunter> q?
16:40:06 <hwest> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:40:17 <Zakim> hwest, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Fielding (34%)
16:40:19 <vincent> Roy: formal objections are noted at the end
16:40:20 <johnsimpson> hearing only the xa trying to call
16:40:23 <npdoty> Zakim, drop fielding
16:40:23 <Zakim> Fielding is being disconnected
16:40:25 <Zakim> -Fielding
16:40:30 <fielding> bummer
16:40:34 <schunter> ack heff
16:40:45 <johnsimpson> is anyone speaking?
16:40:48 <Chris_IAB> that was fun
16:40:54 <Zakim> -JeffWilson
16:40:54 <rigo> q+ rvaneijk
16:40:55 <rvaneijk> q+
16:40:58 <Zakim> - +1.202.222.aaff
16:41:00 <fielding> weird
16:41:06 <npdoty> sorry, fielding, it seemed like that noise was coming from your line
16:41:17 <fielding> yep, I am unable to even hang up
16:41:24 <schunter> ack rvan
16:41:33 <vincent> xxx: we can't say we're compliant witht he spec if the spec does not say what compliance is
16:41:40 <schunter> Rob
16:41:43 <npdoty> s/xxx/hefferjr/
16:41:57 <Zakim> +Fielding
16:42:14 <vincent> rvaneijk: any lanaguage about the compliance shouldgo to the compliance document, for instance the discussion about the default
16:42:16 <rigo> +1 to rvaneijk
16:42:22 <npdoty> should in general we have a pointer from this section to the corresponding Compliance section?
16:42:23 <schunter> q?
16:42:28 <johnsimpson> Q?
16:42:42 <vincent> schunter: let's have a look on section 4, more technical
16:42:43 <rigo> I think we should shift the text to reflect UA interface requirements
16:42:55 <vincent> ... has been stable for a long time
16:43:10 <rvaneijk> s/Rob/rvaneijk/
16:43:10 <npdoty> fielding, do we still need this note about cookie behavior?
16:43:23 <schunter> q?
16:43:24 <vincent> ... javascript API has been revised
16:43:32 <schunter> q?
16:43:32 <vincent> no comment on section 4?
16:43:41 <fielding> diff is now at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Apr/0157.html
16:44:06 <vincent> npdoty: do we still need this comment on cookie behjavior?
16:44:31 <vincent> fielding: David added that so ask him
16:44:32 <npdoty> dsinger not on the call today, unfortunately, I'll follow up via email
16:45:00 <vincent> rigo: wether you can claim that a browser return DNT MUST accept third party cookies
16:45:23 <schunter> q?
16:45:52 <vincent> the next section is section 5
16:46:16 <rigo> q+
16:46:29 <vincent> rigo: wether you can claim that a browser return DNT:0 (not just DNT) MUST accept third party cookies
16:46:53 <vincent> schunter: are there issue that are not properly highlighted?
16:46:54 <schunter> q?
16:46:57 <rigo> ack rig
16:46:57 <npdoty> q+
16:46:58 <schunter> ack rigo
16:47:00 <hefferjr> q+
16:47:41 <vincent> rigo: what we are lacking is a that we can not communicate that a first party accept to be subject to the DNT:1 restriction that also apply to 3rd party, it is something that is needed in EU context
16:47:52 <dwainberg> Matthias -- just the issue I raised on the mailing list, and that you referenced earlier on the call: the "N" flag.
16:48:27 <Zakim> + +1.303.652.aarr
16:48:27 <rvaneijk> q+
16:48:33 <vincent> ... allow DPA to say if you collect data for this specific use you're fine, but if you want to collect more data, you need to receive DNT:0
16:48:40 <vincent> schunter: I disagree
16:48:58 <npdoty> I'm not sure I understood rigo
16:49:01 <vincent> ... : anybody can send the '3' signal, even a first party
16:49:22 <npdoty> although "designed for use within a third-party context" would be inaccurate if it were a first-party context that was conforming to third-party requirements
16:49:38 <vincent> rigo: if yoou send this, the message is ambiguous, one can send 3 because it beleives it is in the 3rd party context
16:49:44 <moneill2> +q
16:49:44 <fielding> "A tracking status value of 3 means that the origin server claims that the designated resource is designed for use within a third-party context and conforms to the requirements on a third party."
16:49:59 <vincent> schunter: resource can not tell if it is loaded in a first or third party context
16:50:12 <npdoty> fielding, re:*and* -- does that mean a first-party can't use it?
16:50:13 <schunter> q?
16:50:16 <vincent> ... you can not say anything about who was loaded in what context
16:50:19 <schunter> ack npdoty
16:50:25 <johnsimpson> ?
16:50:32 <johnsimpson> q?
16:50:43 <fielding> npdoty, no -- it says the resource complies with the third-party requirements in Compliance
16:50:43 <vincent> npdoty: follow up on dwainberg question, how should we be noting the issue there?
16:51:15 <vincent> sissue-119?
16:51:16 <schunter> q?
16:51:17 <WaltM_Comcast> WaltM_Comcast has joined #dnt
16:51:23 <schunter> ack hef
16:51:36 <npdoty> note: add issue 119 to 5.2.1 tracking status value regarding "N"/none
16:51:39 <vincent> hef: we also have issue 155 and 162
16:51:56 <npdoty> issue-152?
16:51:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-152 -- User Agent Compliance: feedback for out-of-band consent -- pending review
16:51:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/152
16:52:00 <npdoty> issue-195?
16:52:00 <trackbot> ISSUE-195 -- Flows and signals for handling out of band consent -- open
16:52:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/195
16:52:03 <Zakim> -RichardWeaver
16:52:10 <vincent> hef: issue 195 and 152
16:52:10 <schunter> q?
16:52:10 <npdoty> I actually think it's just 195
16:52:27 <schunter> q?
16:52:33 <schunter> ack rv
16:53:24 <vincent> rvaneijk: I'd liek to echo some of rigo comment, paragraph 5.1 would be a nice place to say that this can be used at a consitent consent mechanism
16:54:07 <vincent> ... add a comment to 5.1 to echoesRigo comment: if DNT is going to play as a consent mechanism in the EU it should be mentioned explicitely
16:54:16 <fielding> This section is not a consent mechanism. Maybe 6?
16:54:31 <Zakim> -Jonathan_Mayer
16:54:34 <npdoty> rvaneijk, do you want to take an action to propose additional text?
16:54:44 <vincent> rvaneijk: DNT is going to be a consent mechanism or a mechanism that is going to limit use
16:55:25 <npdoty> rvaneijk, do you want to take an action to propose additional text?
16:55:26 <vincent> schunter: that's a good not, saying that the technology can be used to collect consent for exception
16:55:33 <fielding> q+
16:55:35 <schunter> q?
16:55:38 <schunter> ack mo
16:55:43 <rigo> s/good not/good note/
16:56:31 <schunter> ack fiel
16:56:32 <npdoty> although I don't think this is necessary for publishing a snapshot Working Draft, I agree with the question about the third party language
16:56:40 <vincent> moneill: just to echo what rigo said about first party responding as 3rd parties
16:57:13 <vincent> fielding: these comments have no connection with changes on the draft or any connection to discussion in the mailing list
16:57:22 <justin> What fielding is saying.
16:57:37 <Zakim> -[FTC]
16:57:45 <schunter> q?
16:57:54 <vincent> ... if you have text changes that you want in the document, send the text to the mailing list even if it has been discussed on the phone
16:58:20 <vincent> schunter: fully agree with fielding, if you made a comment send it to the list after the call
16:58:27 <schunter> q?
16:58:46 <schunter> q?
16:58:55 <npdoty> q+
16:59:00 <vincent> schunter: moving to seciton 6, user granted exception
17:00:06 <vincent> ... in the new model, the site is responsible to collect user granted exception, and if it is certain that it get the consent, it can register the consent in the browser
17:00:13 <adrianba> q+
17:00:37 <vincent> schunter:  we still have to define the requirement for sites that are necessary in order to register the exception
17:00:53 <Zakim> -WaltM_Comcast
17:00:54 <vincent> ... also fine tuning the API based on adrianba implementation experience
17:00:57 <vincent> q?
17:01:03 <moneill2> q+
17:01:06 <schunter> q?
17:01:09 <schunter> ack n
17:01:48 <vincent> npdoty: could we clarify the section, remove the long option box, move the issue at the top
17:01:54 <adrianba> q-
17:02:02 <adrianba> i was going to say what nick said
17:02:06 <jchester2> have to go to a meeting, apologies
17:02:09 <schunter> ack mo
17:02:10 <Zakim> -jchester2
17:02:14 <npdoty> I'll follow up with David or make that change myself
17:02:19 <vincent> schunter: ok to remove the option box, in the doc issue 187 is noted as open but it is not
17:03:15 <vincent> moneill2: question about the sub-domains, people may not realize that consent can be applied to sub-domains of a main domain
17:03:31 <vincent> ... does not solve the issue of multiple domains owned by a same data controler
17:03:32 <schunter> q?
17:03:56 <npdoty> I think per moneill2, we need to update the reference to ISSUE-112 and note the use of cookie-like rules for sub-domains as currently used in the text
17:04:14 <npdoty> note: update reference to issue 112 regarding subdomains and cookie rules
17:04:44 <rigo> q+
17:04:52 <vincent> schunter: we completed the pass through the document, I'll do the update and depending on how the compliance document is doing we may decide to publsih another document
17:05:05 <rigo> q-
17:05:46 <vincent> peterswire: I have different comemnts to make before moving to the compliance spec
17:06:15 <vincent> ... about the f2f, the meeting will begin mid-day on monday until wendseday mid afternoon
17:06:23 <vincent> a lot of time gonna be on the compliance spec
17:06:29 <npdoty> f2f registration, by the way: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwgca2013/
17:07:14 <vincent> ... offiline disucssion on financial reporting, might be either to get agreement that we had expect
17:07:31 <vincent> ... we'll have language by alan on education
17:07:55 <vincent> ... today we have a discussion on non interactive user agent
17:08:29 <vincent> peterswire: how to proceed with the compliance spec, we recognize the issues as important
17:08:40 <vincent> ... we're trying to get to stable text
17:08:49 <Zakim> -hwest
17:09:03 <vincent> ... it is important that we emerge froim the f2f of a good architecture of what the compliance spec will look like
17:09:43 <vincent> ... many of the issue of how far the document will go on the privacy side and on the 3rd party & advertiser side
17:10:12 <vincent> ... my own effort has been to play the mediator role, we're reaching a decision point
17:11:12 <vincent> ... I encourage any of you to discuss to try to find a compromise on some packages
17:11:35 <vincent> ... if we don't achieve that; then there are 2 or 3 ways the process can go
17:12:29 <vincent> ... one solution is that we'll have a compliance with the privacy side
17:13:03 <vincent> ... antoher solution is that DNT will be similar to the DAA principle
17:13:28 <vincent> ... the third solution is to have a compromise, to have support from different parts of the group
17:13:39 <schunter> q?
17:13:40 <rvaneijk> q+
17:14:06 <vincent> ... I'm inviting you to do is to think what's an overall package we should have
17:14:31 <vincent> ... we might have some choices that are harsher that what we expect
17:15:44 <npdoty> ... think about what real privacy / user choices changes a proposal would made
17:15:56 <npdoty> ... think about what's likely to get real adoption from a critical mass
17:15:56 <vincent> peterswire: I recognize how hard it is and that it might be hard to put a package together
17:16:17 <peterswire> q?
17:16:24 <npdoty> ack rvaneijk
17:16:25 <vincent> ... think about what an overall approach would be that could get adoption from the working group
17:16:33 <johnsimpson> Q?
17:17:12 <vincent> rvaneijk: first, I appraciate the effort, my first reaction is that the two positions are two far appart
17:18:04 <vincent> ... the standard is more likely to go in one extrem direction or in the other
17:18:20 <vincent> ... I really think the two positions are too far apprt
17:18:36 <vincent> peterswire: antoher outcome would be it's a no go in general
17:19:17 <vincent> ... I encourage you to think what the best way to build on the work that have been done so far
17:19:34 <Zakim> -phildpearce
17:19:52 <vincent> ... one of the reason we should have a consensus is that we should avoid the arm race
17:20:07 <schunter> q?
17:20:25 <vincent> ... it'll result in an internet that is not useful for the user and not good for the industry (cookie mechanism broken)
17:21:10 <peterswire> q?
17:21:30 <vincent> ... I want to chalenge you all about how far can you go on the issues, be ready to make choice when you get to that meeting
17:21:30 <justin> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html
17:21:36 <npdoty> Topic: Compliance draft
17:21:48 <vincent> peterswire: justin any keypoint you'd liek to highlight
17:22:00 <vincent> justin: not a lot of change since the barebon doc
17:22:17 <vincent> ... did not have much agreement since the boston meeting
17:22:30 <npdoty> we're down to single text on first parties and multiple first parties
17:22:44 <vincent> justin: I tried to put things as option (for instance audience measurement)
17:23:37 <npdoty> ... put together a provisional definition of "tracking" in Section 2
17:23:44 <aleecia> aleecia has joined #dnt
17:23:47 <vincent> thanks npdoty
17:23:48 <rigo> vincent, just note that Justin presents the changes
17:23:49 <npdoty> ... based on some conversations from Boston
17:24:06 <aleecia> q?
17:24:12 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
17:24:13 <vincent> justin: present changes in the compliance document
17:24:27 <fielding> Defining the term "tracking" is a charter requirement.
17:24:43 <aleecia> (sorry about today - we had another death on the tracks, which made the commute more insane than normal)
17:24:56 <schunter> q?
17:25:19 <aleecia> Roy - I'm *really* close to being able to live with Justin's text, and I think you can live with the changes I'd make.
17:25:35 <vincent> peterswire: question to schunter, should we publish both docs at the same time, one way to go is that schunter make a pass based on today's comment and justin update the compliance doc based on email discussion
17:26:16 <vincent> schunter: we can wait for the compliance spec to make a joint publication
17:26:59 <johnsimpson> aleecia, what definition  would you propose?
17:27:04 <npdoty> Topic: TPE issues
17:27:22 <vincent> schunter: I pointed 2 or 3 issues, e.g. what would be the tracking signal be
17:27:25 <johnsimpson> q?
17:27:31 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:27:33 <Zakim> -dwainberg
17:27:34 <Zakim> -ninjamarnau
17:27:35 <Zakim> -Joanne
17:27:36 <Zakim> -Chris_Pedigo
17:27:36 <Zakim> -peterswire?
17:27:36 <Zakim> -[CDT]
17:27:36 <Zakim> - +1.202.787.aajj
17:27:36 <Zakim> -efelten?
17:27:37 <Zakim> -Aleecia
17:27:37 <Zakim> -adrianba
17:27:38 <Zakim> -hefferjr
17:27:38 <Zakim> -vinay
17:27:39 <Zakim> - +1.303.652.aarr
17:27:39 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
17:27:39 <Zakim> -moneill2
17:27:39 <Zakim> -Rigo
17:27:40 <npdoty> review those issues via email, to be discussed on a later call
17:27:41 <Zakim> -kulick
17:27:42 <vincent> ... people should have a look on the agenda and be prepared to discuss those issues next week
17:27:44 <Zakim> -David_MacMillan
17:27:44 <npdoty> Zakim, please list the attendees
17:27:45 <Zakim> I don't understand 'please list the attendees', npdoty
17:27:45 <Zakim> -SusanIsrael
17:27:46 <aleecia> What I'd do is take the multi-party aspect out of the defn (strike one word) and then move to a second sentence, "While first parties can and do track users, other than (x-ref to sending a response, data append with section number, anything else, possibly the null set depending on what we do) first parties
17:27:46 <Zakim> -Fielding
17:27:46 <Zakim> -prestia
17:27:46 <Zakim> -Brooks
17:27:47 <Zakim> -johnsimpson
17:27:47 <Zakim> -laurengelman
17:27:49 <Zakim> -Yianni
17:27:49 <Zakim> -vincent
17:27:49 <npdoty> Zakim, list attendees
17:27:50 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.646.845.aaaa, +1.609.258.aabb, eberkower, jchester2, Yianni, +44.772.301.aacc, npdoty, +1.404.385.aadd, Fielding, Chris_IAB?,
17:27:50 <Zakim> ... +1.917.934.aaee, JeffWilson, vinay, +1.202.222.aaff, RichardWeaver, phildpearce, dwainberg, schunter, [CDT], sidstamm, adrianba, +33.6.50.34.aagg, [Microsoft], vincent,
17:27:53 <aleecia> right, to the mailing list
17:27:54 <Zakim> ... +1.215.480.aahh, Aleecia, +31.65.141.aaii, rvaneijk, moneill2, +1.202.787.aajj, efelten?, WaltM_Comcast, hefferjr, SusanIsrael, +1.202.347.aakk, Brooks, prestia,
17:27:54 <Zakim> ... +1.650.465.aall, +1.408.836.aamm, Chris_Pedigo, kulick, Rigo, David_MacMillan, Jonathan_Mayer, +49.431.98.aann, ninjamarnau, +1.646.666.aaoo, Chapell, +1.650.365.aapp,
17:27:54 <Zakim> ... johnsimpson, Joanne, [FTC], hwest, +1.415.627.aaqq, laurengelman, peterswire?, +1.303.652.aarr
17:27:54 <Zakim> -schunter
17:27:57 <Zakim> -Chapell
17:27:58 <Zakim> -eberkower
17:28:08 <npdoty> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group teleconference
17:28:13 <npdoty> chair: schunter
17:28:22 <npdoty> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:28:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/04/17-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
17:29:00 <Zakim> -npdoty
17:29:26 <Zakim> -Chris_IAB?
17:29:27 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:29:27 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.646.845.aaaa, +1.609.258.aabb, eberkower, jchester2, Yianni, +44.772.301.aacc, npdoty, +1.404.385.aadd, Fielding, Chris_IAB?, +1.917.934.aaee, JeffWilson, vinay,
17:29:27 <Zakim> ... +1.202.222.aaff, RichardWeaver, phildpearce, dwainberg, schunter, [CDT], sidstamm, adrianba, +33.6.50.34.aagg, [Microsoft], vincent, +1.215.480.aahh, Aleecia, +31.65.141.aaii,
17:29:28 <Zakim> ... rvaneijk, moneill2, +1.202.787.aajj, efelten?, WaltM_Comcast, hefferjr, SusanIsrael, +1.202.347.aakk, Brooks, prestia, +1.650.465.aall, +1.408.836.aamm, Chris_Pedigo, kulick,
17:29:28 <Zakim> ... Rigo, David_MacMillan, Jonathan_Mayer, +49.431.98.aann, ninjamarnau, +1.646.666.aaoo, Chapell, +1.650.365.aapp, johnsimpson, Joanne, [FTC], hwest, +1.415.627.aaqq,
17:29:28 <Zakim> ... laurengelman, peterswire?, +1.303.652.aarr
17:29:53 <npdoty> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:29:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/04/17-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
17:52:30 <rvaneijk> rvaneijk has joined #dnt
18:31:12 <BillScannell> BillScannell has joined #dnt
18:43:52 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
19:00:31 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
19:57:02 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dnt
21:37:24 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
22:34:22 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt