15:43:47 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:43:47 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/12-dnt-irc
15:43:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:43:49 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dnt
15:43:51 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
15:43:51 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:43:52 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:43:52 <trackbot> Date: 12 June 2013
15:43:59 <npdoty> Zakim, this will be TRACK
15:43:59 <Zakim> ok, npdoty; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 17 minutes
15:44:03 <Chris_IAB> npdoty, good morning-- did you see my email just now?
15:44:04 <aerber> aerber has joined #dnt
15:44:11 <npdoty> chair: schunter, peterswire
15:44:40 <Chris_IAB> npdoty, got your reply just now-- thanks!
15:45:01 <eberkower> eberkower has joined #dnt
15:46:14 <Chris_IAB> npdoty, that's the one.  slow server on my side -- thanks :)
15:47:57 <rvaneijk> rvaneijk has joined #dnt
15:52:28 <jackhobaugh> jackhobaugh has joined #dnt
15:53:17 <efelten> efelten has joined #dnt
15:56:26 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:58:23 <paulohm> paulohm has joined #dnt
15:58:26 <Polonetsky> Polonetsky has joined #DNT
15:58:37 <moneill2> zakim. [IPCaller] is me
15:58:46 <moneill2> zakim, [IPCaller] is me
15:58:46 <Zakim> sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named '[IPCaller]'
15:58:50 <hefferjr> hefferjr has joined #dnt
15:58:57 <jmayer> jmayer has joined #dnt
15:59:02 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
15:59:05 <Chris_IAB> I just joined from a private number
15:59:20 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:59:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
15:59:21 <Polonetsky> Zakim, 202687 is Jules Polonetsky
15:59:21 <Zakim> I don't understand '202687 is Jules Polonetsky', Polonetsky
15:59:27 <Chris_IAB> npdoty, I just joined from a private/blocked number
15:59:34 <npdoty> Zakim, this is 87225
15:59:34 <Zakim> npdoty, this was already T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
15:59:35 <Zakim> ok, npdoty; that matches T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
15:59:40 <Joanne> Joanne has joined #DNT
15:59:40 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:59:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
15:59:51 <BillScannell> BillScannell has joined #dnt
15:59:53 <eberkower> I'm over here, Zakim
16:00:07 <justin> justin has joined #dnt
16:00:13 <Ari> Ari has joined #dnt
16:00:21 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
16:00:29 <efelten> Zakim, code?
16:00:29 <Zakim> the conference code is 87225 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), efelten
16:00:32 <peterswire> peterswire has joined #dnt
16:01:05 <Richard_comScore> Richard_comScore has joined #dnt
16:01:13 <hwest> hwest has joined #dnt
16:01:28 <Yianni> Yianni has joined #dnt
16:01:33 <Chapell> Chapell has joined #DNT
16:01:37 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:01:51 <npdoty> Zakim, bye
16:01:51 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dnt
16:01:57 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dnt
16:02:01 <Marc_> Marc_ has joined #dnt
16:02:02 <npdoty> Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:02:02 <Zakim> sorry, npdoty, I don't know what conference this is
16:02:08 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
16:02:08 <npdoty> Zakim, this is TRACK
16:02:08 <Zakim> ok, npdoty; that matches T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
16:02:12 <npdoty> Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:02:12 <Zakim> I don't see anyone present, npdoty
16:02:27 <phildpearce> phildpearce has joined #dnt
16:02:53 <ChrisPedigoOPA> ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:03:01 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:03:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
16:03:02 <kj> kj has joined #dnt
16:03:14 <npdoty> Zakim, who is here?
16:03:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
16:03:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see kj, ChrisPedigoOPA, phildpearce, fielding, Marc_, Zakim, schunter, Chapell, Yianni, hwest, Richard_comScore, peterswire, adrianba, Ari, justin, BillScannell, Joanne,
16:03:15 <Zakim> ... dwainberg, jmayer, hefferjr, Polonetsky, paulohm, efelten, jackhobaugh
16:03:38 <JC> JC has joined #DNT
16:03:44 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:03:46 <David_MacMillan> David_MacMillan has joined #dnt
16:03:54 <Chris_IAB> someone in Germany put us on hold?
16:03:54 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P22 (16%), ??P28 (9%), ??P33 (21%)
16:03:59 <aleecia> aleecia has joined #dnt
16:04:00 <dwainberg> I didn't hear any of what Peter was saying.
16:04:02 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
16:04:03 <WaltMichel> WaltMichel has joined #DNT
16:04:07 <dwainberg> Just that he asked if I was on the call.
16:04:09 <npdoty> scribenick: Yianni
16:04:15 <moneill2> zakim, [IPCaller] is me
16:04:15 <Zakim> sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named '[IPCaller]'
16:04:17 <mecallahan> mecallahan has joined #dnt
16:04:24 <schunter> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue
16:04:32 <Yianni> matthias: posting in overdue actions
16:04:54 <peter-4As> peter-4As has joined #dnt
16:04:56 <cOlsen> cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:04:57 <Yianni> ...Rigo is first
16:05:03 <Yianni> ...David
16:05:10 <Yianni> ...Chris Pedigo
16:05:11 <aleecia> hi
16:05:17 <Yianni> ...Aleecia
16:05:24 <Yianni> ...Shane
16:05:24 <npdoty> aleecia, did you have an update on your action?
16:05:33 <Yianni> ...Rob Sherman
16:05:40 <Yianni> ...Thomas
16:05:50 <Yianni> ...Richard Weaver
16:05:58 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
16:06:01 <aleecia> It sounded like dsinger took this one up, perhaps several times, already.
16:06:05 <Yianni> Peter: Richard needs another week on audience measurement
16:06:12 <aleecia> Looks like we can close it as duplicate
16:06:18 <fielding> I completed my two actions and moved them to pending review
16:06:21 <Yianni> Matthias: Susan Isreal
16:06:22 <npdoty> I think some of the action items on audience measurement have already been postponed again by a week
16:06:29 <Yianni> Peter: same project as Richard
16:06:44 <Yianni> Matthias: Justin action 401 he sent
16:06:51 <Yianni> ...pending review
16:06:52 <WileyS> WileyS has joined #DNT
16:07:15 <Yianni> Justin: sent on a difference action.  Action 401 is difference
16:07:28 <npdoty> Zakim, bye
16:07:28 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dnt
16:07:30 <Yianni> ...reluctant to make changes to compliance spec, confused on what he should be working on right now with June draft
16:07:38 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dnt
16:07:45 <npdoty> Zakim, this is 87225
16:07:45 <Zakim> ok, npdoty; that matches T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
16:07:49 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:07:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
16:07:52 <Yianni> Matthias: take a look at compliance related actions
16:07:54 <justin> Probably flux.
16:08:01 <vinay> vinay has joined #dnt
16:08:05 <Chris_IAB> I submitted action 407 today
16:08:05 <Yianni> Peter: correct to say compliance actions are in flux
16:08:10 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has been moved to #dnt-test by npdoty
16:08:17 <Yianni> Matthias: want a quick status review of some of the issues
16:08:27 <Yianni> ...pushback on issue 192 from Rob
16:08:40 <Yianni> ...closed issue 192, but created issue 201 for Rob's concern
16:08:47 <Yianni> ...we are down to 12 or so open issues
16:08:54 <Yianni> ...quickly discuss incoming actions
16:08:55 <schunter> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/200
16:08:57 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
16:09:03 <Yianni> ...one issue I would like to look at is issue 200
16:09:09 <Yianni> ...want to make sure that something is going on
16:09:17 <WileyS> +q
16:09:17 <Yianni> ...Rigo and Shane wanted to propose text
16:09:23 <npdoty> q?
16:09:26 <Yianni> ...Is Shane or Rigo on the call?
16:09:28 <schunter> q?
16:09:34 <schunter> ack Wil
16:09:39 <Yianni> Peter: big W3C meeting in Japan
16:09:46 <npdoty> regrets+ rigo, wseltzer, tlr, dsinger
16:09:55 <Yianni> Shane: we have provided draft text in conversation.  we need to wrap together
16:10:06 <Yianni> ...the remaining issue on caching is part of a group conversation
16:10:40 <npdoty> q+
16:10:48 <Yianni> ...we're a server cannot speak to the server directly.  Can I turn that into draft text
16:11:22 <Yianni> Matthias: we converged on language, if we have user granted exception, website can cach and send to other servers, if you receive new information the cach has to be refreshed and passed on
16:11:30 <Yianni> Shane: only thing that is not needed is sharing
16:12:04 <Yianni> ...in exchange scenario, individual servers in situations we're you cannot speak to user agent directly, you would rely on last known state
16:12:16 <Yianni> ...the next time you interact with user agent directly, you would update that state
16:12:30 <Yianni> ...more effort to manage state in those scenarios, but believe you should offer those options
16:12:40 <Yianni> Matthias: behind some layers of other servers
16:13:07 <Yianni> Shane: way exchange servers work, exchange has direct communcation with user agent and is speaking with those participating in a bid server to server, not speaking directly to user agent
16:13:27 <Yianni> ...they may have been granted an exception, but since they cannot speak to user agent directly, they cannot receive 0
16:13:32 <jmayer> +q
16:13:33 <efelten> If you're not speaking to the UA, how do you know which user it is?
16:13:43 <Yianni> ...on next interaction with user, they must update the status
16:14:08 <Yianni> Matthias: web wide exception, you know you have a user granted exception from say yesterday
16:14:48 <Yianni> Shane: all of this is done through cookie id mapping, exception from user ABC, so I will treat them as if I have an exception
16:14:57 <schunter> q?
16:15:03 <schunter> ack np
16:15:03 <Yianni> ...it is because of the disconnect, inability to talk to UA that they need concept of caching
16:15:46 <Yianni> Nick: thanks for the explanation.  Issue tracking question, 201 for tracking of caching or is it for the interaction between UGE and out of band
16:16:04 <jmayer> I think we should have a new ISSUE and move on. There are some engineering solutions here, but no reason to take up the call with them.
16:16:22 <Yianni> Nick: question of granting web wide exception and my interaction is passed on through an ad exchange, can you get to scenario where user cannot revoke an exception?
16:16:59 <Yianni> Shane: it would be a very narrow use case, the only way server would never interact with UA if they only did business through exchanges, one or two players in the marketplace
16:17:18 <Yianni> ...there are a lot of business motiviation to have direct interaction with user
16:17:21 <npdoty> issue-200 for transitive exceptions and server-to-server communication; issue-201 for interaction between uge and oobc
16:17:36 <kj_> kj_ has joined #dnt
16:17:37 <Yianni> ...the first time you win a bid, you are able to serve content, at that time you are touching user agent and can update
16:17:52 <Yianni> ...cannot think of a scenario of never having a direct interaction with user agent again
16:18:01 <Yianni> ...do not think it is a realistic scenario
16:18:03 <npdoty> wileys, understand it might be rare for third parties get into a long-term scenario where they don't interact directly, it would just provide an incentive for getting an exception and not directly interacting with the user
16:18:19 <Yianni> ...I could see from a per technical perspective, but cannot see from a business perspective
16:18:58 <Yianni> Shane: first you need to get the exception, start with getting user granted exception, then cach, then move into a pure server to server position
16:19:16 <Yianni> ...could create non-normative language to say if that was your intent, it would be inappropriate
16:19:20 <schunter> ack jo
16:19:22 <WileyS> q?
16:19:23 <schunter> ack j
16:19:41 <aleecia> jonathan?
16:19:45 <aleecia> we hear no one
16:19:45 <WileyS> Jonathan - we cannot hear you
16:19:57 <WaltMichel> WaltMichel has joined #DNT
16:20:28 <Yianni> Matthias: jonathan you were on Q for caching user granted exceptions
16:21:02 <WileyS> +q
16:21:07 <schunter> q?
16:21:08 <Yianni> Jonathan: understand use case, there are serious problems with stall dnt signals or misuse, and we can come up with something that works
16:21:09 <npdoty> part of the intent of web-wide exceptions has been the situation of getting an exception directly from the user (in a first-party scenario), and then applying it to a third party scenario
16:21:56 <Yianni> Shane: Nick create an action to propose text, more than happy of adding prescriptive details, or add text to use caching to hide from seeing dnt signals
16:22:07 <Yianni> ...we can provide true technical details in non-normative text
16:22:34 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:22:55 <johnsimpson> q?
16:22:56 <Yianni> Jonathan: first explore if there is a way to do this where we have no problems technically, straightforward engineering problem
16:23:31 <npdoty> can we have two actions then? Shane to propose as he sees it; and Jonathan on a possible cache-invalidation approach
16:23:36 <Yianni> Shane: Jonathan, why don't we split into two tracks, I do not how to predict a UGE when you do not know if that server is participating.  I will move forward with draft text, understanding you will disagree
16:24:06 <Yianni> Matthias: took a while to understand precisely the scenario, then we may be able to find a technical solution
16:24:09 <npdoty> action: wiley to provide text on caching exceptions in cases of server-to-server communication (detail on the use case, in particular)
16:24:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-421 - Provide text on caching exceptions in cases of server-to-server communication (detail on the use case, in particular) [on Shane Wiley - due 2013-06-19].
16:24:16 <Yianni> Nick: can you give an action to Shane
16:24:29 <Yianni> Matthias: do scenario use case first, then come forward with the solution
16:24:41 <npdoty> jmayer, do you want an action item for a cache invalidation proposal? or just respond to Shane on mailing list?
16:24:46 <Yianni> ...next item on my list
16:24:54 <Yianni> ...Justin issue 153 text
16:25:01 <Yianni> ...Justin could you summarize the text
16:25:07 <schunter> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/153
16:25:15 <npdoty> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/0061.html
16:25:23 <Yianni> Justin: basic idea, if you are in a position where you cannot determine in real time and you use the P signal
16:25:28 <npdoty> (this is not related to issue 153)
16:25:42 <Yianni> ...add a caveat, you cannot rejection signal because it is a user agent you do not like
16:25:47 <jmayer> +q
16:25:49 <Yianni> ...you have to reject a user agent in real time
16:25:59 <npdoty> q?
16:26:08 <Yianni> Matthias: text sounds reasonable, suggest putting it in spec and giving a final review in the spec
16:26:17 <npdoty> q- wileys
16:26:18 <npdoty> q?
16:26:19 <schunter> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/195
16:26:21 <Yianni> ...actually issue 195
16:26:26 <schunter> q?
16:26:39 <npdoty> ack jmayer
16:26:53 <Yianni> Jonathan: make sure that the option of not having option flag preserved
16:27:13 <Yianni> ...i am of the view that if you are not sure if you do not have an exception, act as if you do not have an exception
16:27:30 <npdoty> "act as if you don't have an exception, and work to clarify that"
16:27:36 <Yianni> ...could iterate on the text, but some members of the group think it should not be in the document at all
16:28:12 <Yianni> Matthias: I think we can reach consensus, the P signal does not relieve compliance at all.  Sending P does not do anything to tracking
16:28:38 <Yianni> ...all it does is give more time to give answer, instead of giving answer in one sec, you can now spend an hour
16:29:00 <Yianni> Jonathan: back to the point of misunderstanding, a free 48 hour pass that has not been clearly motivated with a use case
16:29:11 <Yianni> ...I would like to have a real understanding of the use case
16:29:29 <schunter> q?
16:29:30 <Yianni> ...we can iterate on the text, but lets not assume this is going into the document, clearly not consensus
16:29:47 <rvaneijk> the P flag is solving a problem for audience measurement, but frankly, the audience measurement parties should innovate IMHO.
16:29:53 <Yianni> Matthias: lets continue discussion on the list
16:30:04 <schunter> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/0065.html
16:30:07 <Yianni> ...the last piece of discussion I have is issue 153
16:30:24 <npdoty> jmayer, I think we've gathered some text on the use case from Ronan; if there is a lot of pushback on that, we should develop alternative text, or, if the alternative text is just silence, we might need to go through the call for objections process
16:30:24 <Yianni> ...basically, proposed text with link
16:30:30 <Yianni> ...want feedback on text
16:30:45 <npdoty> Alan's latest: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/0065.html
16:30:47 <Chris_IAB> I support Alan's text
16:30:54 <npdoty> q+
16:30:58 <schunter> ack n
16:31:00 <jmayer> +q
16:31:19 <Yianni> Nick: thanks Alan for providing this, I prefer the text earlier in this version
16:31:59 <Yianni> ...must be some confusion with comply with rest of this document, determining user preference section is the key thing we want them to comply with. is it reasonable to focus on that then the rest of the TPE
16:32:11 <kulick> kulick has joined #dnt
16:32:25 <Yianni> Alan: I altered language from comments from Matthias, my perspective is that you have to otherwise comply with document anyway, not sure it is neccesary
16:32:26 <npdoty> +1 that compliance requires complying :)
16:33:04 <Yianni> Matthias: my mind, point was that if somehow mess with a user agent, it is your responsible that your extention satisfies the spec.
16:33:15 <Yianni> ...need to make sure pieces in browser do not break
16:33:37 <Yianni> ...one example, the browser has a user granted exception api, and plug in does not have it
16:34:00 <moneill2> +q
16:34:05 <Yianni> ...basically, not all plug in have to do exception API if they reliably pass information on and browser can implement as specified
16:34:36 <Yianni> Alan: question for Nick as early drafter of some of this language, we made reference to another document.  I thought we were talking about technical spec and not corresponding section in compliance document
16:34:39 <peterswire> Q?
16:34:45 <peterswire> +q
16:35:00 <Yianni> Nick: can respond directly, we wrote this text when there was not a seperate user agent compliance section in compliance spec
16:35:25 <Yianni> ...my point was about, if you are modifying the preference you should satisfy the preference section
16:35:40 <jmayer> +q
16:35:47 <Yianni> Alan: I do not have super strong feeling, how does requiring complaince with document generally creating an issue?
16:36:04 <Chris_IAB> German lady is back
16:36:05 <Yianni> Nick: poiting out an ambiguity, even if you are not a server, you have to implement a server
16:36:24 <Yianni> Alan: Matthias do you have any response
16:36:36 <Yianni> Matthias: does it make sense for Nick to reword
16:36:44 <npdoty> I'm certainly willing to try, though I do think it'll be as Alan has described
16:36:50 <Yianni> Alan: tailor to particular part of the document we are talking about.  I can certainly do that
16:36:57 <npdoty> q?
16:36:58 <aleecia> :)
16:37:00 <Yianni> Nick: sounds great to have Alan do
16:37:15 <aleecia> x-ref is good
16:37:23 <npdoty> it's certainly reasonable to reference the Compliance spec, yes!
16:37:25 <schunter> q?
16:37:34 <schunter> ack p
16:37:36 <jmayer> So, to clarify... we're reserving a decision on whether non-browser UAs have to support the exception API etc.
16:37:44 <Yianni> Peter: I think it is relevant, I think there is some W3C work to make sure we are doing the right things to intercept the complaince and tpe specs
16:37:49 <Chris_IAB> schunter, you have a q on this issue
16:37:55 <Yianni> ...i think W3C needs to get clear on what is going where
16:38:00 <schunter> I just realised ;-)
16:38:04 <schunter> ack j
16:38:04 <Yianni> Alan: just making the call for consistency, so fine by me
16:38:33 <Yianni> Jonathan: I think I wound up in the same place as Alan, we will figure out exactly what requirements are imposed on non-browser UAs
16:39:03 <Yianni> Alan: discussion was tailored to should we be referecning particular section in complaince document, and should we be refering section 3 or the complace TPE
16:39:19 <Yianni> Matthias: not about non-browser UAs, it is about intermediaries between browser UA and user
16:39:32 <Yianni> ...non-browser UAs are not part of the discussion
16:39:42 <Yianni> Jonathan: plug in would be a non-browser UA
16:39:47 <peterswire> From June Draft: The specification applies to compliance with requests through user agents that (1) can
16:39:47 <peterswire> access the general browsable Web; (2) have a user interface that satisfies the
16:39:48 <peterswire> requirements in Determining User Preference in the [TRACKING-DNT] specification; (3)
16:39:49 <fielding> zakim, who is speaking?
16:39:49 <Zakim> sorry, fielding, I don't know what conference this is
16:39:49 <peterswire> and can implement all of the [TRACKING-DNT] specification, including the mechanisms
16:39:50 <peterswire> for communicating a tracking status, and the user-granted exception mechanism.
16:39:52 <schunter> q?
16:39:57 <schunter> ack mo
16:39:59 <aleecia> zakim, this is dnt
16:39:59 <Zakim> aleecia, T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM is already associated with an irc channel; use 'move dnt to here' if you mean to reassociate the channel
16:40:01 <Yianni> Matthias: Mike is next
16:40:08 <aleecia> wheee
16:40:39 <Chris_IAB> Mike, which requirement is that?
16:40:42 <Yianni> Mike: the user agents must have default of unset, I do not think we should have must because of circumstances in Europe
16:41:07 <npdoty> in general, we have always accepted that legal requirements could trump our decisions
16:41:10 <Chris_IAB> lost Alan
16:41:16 <schunter> q?
16:41:20 <Yianni> Alan: my feeling on this is that we have been clear for a while that defaul needs to be unset. but one could see a scenario where certain jurisdictions - lost Alan
16:41:23 <Chris_IAB> q+
16:41:29 <Chris_IAB> q-
16:41:30 <johnsimpson> we keep losing Alan
16:41:47 <johnsimpson> ok now
16:41:48 <Yianni> ...(lost for about 30 seconds) may determine that unset means something different than unset in the US
16:42:07 <Yianni> ...it is possible for the EU to interprete unset differently than other jurisdictions
16:42:07 <npdoty> moneill2, to Alan's point, is it more likely that the EU would make requirements about the interpretation of unset, rather than requiring the sending of DNT:1?
16:42:12 <rvaneijk> I am fine with 'unset'
16:42:25 <Chris_IAB> this is why we need a jurisdictional approach to compliance
16:42:36 <Yianni> Matthias: we agreed to this basic language, could only send preference with express preference from user
16:43:01 <npdoty> is Alan's text meant to add to or replace the existing text that says "must have a default tracking preference of unset"?
16:43:11 <Yianni> Mike: Is this new text, must be set unset is difficult
16:43:13 <npdoty> "A user agent MUST have a default tracking preference of unset (not enabled) unless a specific tracking preference is implied by the decision to use that agent."
16:43:19 <efelten> Where is this new text supposed to go?
16:43:23 <npdoty> moneill2, the above sentence is quite old
16:43:40 <jmayer> +q
16:43:50 <Yianni> Matthias: otherwise the requirements for a plug in would be different than a user agent
16:43:57 <Yianni> ...we will engineer the text a bit more on the list
16:44:05 <Yianni> ...Alan to scope down to specific sections
16:44:09 <jmayer> -q
16:44:19 <npdoty> Topic: Compliance
16:44:20 <Yianni> ...I would like to hand this over to Peter
16:44:39 <Yianni> ...someone to scribe for second half?
16:44:52 <npdoty> Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:44:52 <Zakim> sorry, npdoty, I don't know what conference this is
16:45:30 <npdoty> Marc_, can you scribe?
16:45:48 <npdoty> efelten, can you scribe?
16:45:51 <fielding> I will
16:45:59 <npdoty> scribenick: fielding
16:46:01 <efelten> Sorry, I'm walking around.  Can't scribe.
16:46:18 <jmayer> I'm not sure why the requirements on extensions should be the same as the requirements for a browser. We should discuss on the list.
16:46:41 <fielding> peter: talk about June draft, but first a couple things about databases
16:47:09 <fielding> … in last week, incredible media coverage about building databases (NSA)
16:48:47 <npdoty> ... concern from a former federal prosecutor that interest in ad-related databases may grow
16:48:51 <Chris_IAB> peterswire, with all respect, I question if your offering this analysis is appropriate?
16:49:22 <fielding> … this whole area could be the subject of intense government interest in the days forward
16:49:37 <npdoty> ... as in the location example, law enforcement, a couple of individuals learn about the use of a technology, and then spread through training / education in that community
16:49:50 <fielding> peter: how we got to the June draft
16:50:11 <npdoty> ... currently a national and international conversation, society-wide discussion
16:50:45 <jmayer> +q
16:51:12 <fielding> peter: we are on a tight deadline, there are a lot of interdependencies between the two drafts.  In order to make progress, I have been working with W3C staff to come up with a new summary draft that is a clean text close to discussion at F2F
16:51:59 <npdoty> june draft link: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance-june.html
16:52:11 <fielding> … effort in the June text is to have a shorter, cleaner, easier to read overall document that selects the options that have more overall support from the group
16:52:25 <npdoty> peter's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/0031.html
16:52:43 <fielding> … erred a little bit on getting this out to you as quickly as possible
16:52:48 <jmayer> Would add that DNI Clapper's strange definition of "collection" has received substantial public criticism. And yet, it's precisely the notion of "collection" that some participants have frequently advanced in this group.
16:53:21 <fielding> … the goal is to have an overall package for review to see if this is within the ballpark of what the WG can live with
16:54:24 <fielding> … it hasn't been clear what the group's understanding on timing of compliance … when the group expects that compliance will take effect
16:55:18 <fielding> aleecia: there was a discussion of a testing flag … when companies assert compliance they will send something other than the test flag
16:56:19 <fielding> … dsinger raised the issue that we might need something along the lines of versioning to indicate which version of DNT they are testing/complying to
16:56:25 <jmayer> +q
16:56:43 <Chris_IAB> q?
16:56:54 <johnsimpson> q?
16:57:08 <fielding> peter: has there been any sense that there is an expected timeline for companies to comply?
16:57:45 <npdoty> ack jmayer
16:58:18 <npdoty> q+ jmayer
16:58:25 <fielding> aleecia: no, companies have a choice to comply and can adopt the compliance in a timeline accordingly
16:58:39 <jmayer> Once again cut off by group leadership. Joy.
16:59:19 <aleecia> (if there's anyone who disagrees with the model that companies assert compliance when they are ready, I'd be curious to hear why; I think this one is pretty straight-forward)
16:59:59 <WileyS> Aleecia, agree with you.
17:00:03 <WileyS> Thomas, Rob V. and I have more detailed draft text on de-identification - will post soon.
17:00:28 <fielding> peter: third topic is deidentification and three-state process red/yellow/green
17:00:56 <fielding> … that process surfaced more issues about transition between states
17:01:53 <WileyS> Would suggest we use DAA de-identification language as the base - not FTC
17:01:58 <fielding> … in light of those discussions, june draft returns to language close to the FTC language where you are one side of de-id line or the other
17:02:28 <WileyS> +1 to Rob - not sure why this wasn't reflected either
17:02:49 <rvaneijk> Definition choice is very cirical, suggestion to follow daa de-identification language must be dicsussed on the list first.
17:02:56 <fielding> … also under part 3, there were retention limits on data … after consulting with tlr, june draft did not include those
17:03:21 <WileyS> Rob - agreed - we should put both up for discussion (FTC and DAA) - their close so a hybrid should be possible.
17:03:36 <WileyS> s/their/they're
17:03:41 <justin> rvaneijk, wileys, It's just the chair's proposal.  There are lots of other proposals that aren't included.  It's an effort to pick from among all the various options in the current editors' draft (and others).
17:03:44 <Chris_IAB> +1 to rvaneijk comment above
17:03:51 <fielding> … language of UIDs was added to june draft as well
17:03:56 <Chris_IAB> peterswire, where is this coming from?
17:04:47 <Chris_IAB> peterswire, are you saying that you feel the June draft is not sufficient?  I'm confused-- need clarification
17:04:57 <fielding> … june draft contains data minimization language from the draft framework with new language on not relying on UIDs if alternatives are available
17:05:17 <jmayer> +q
17:05:18 <WileyS> Peter - this appears to miss everyones conversation in Sunnyvale (unique IDs)
17:05:36 <Chris_IAB> did we reference the FTC de-id language in the June draft?
17:05:52 <WileyS> Chris, Peter did - not "we"
17:06:02 <fielding> … there are certain places where folks on the consumer privacy side have not got what they asked for, and places where industry has not got what they asked for
17:06:33 <jmayer> -q
17:07:03 <fielding> … for example, Vinay asked on the list about "only" in the service provider text, we welcome more such input on the mailing list
17:08:19 <fielding> … there may be other areas where the drafting group did not find text that matched where the WG views seemed to have some form of consensus, so looking for more text along those lines
17:08:43 <fielding> … next Wed will be a much more organized review, issue by issue
17:08:48 <peterswire> q?
17:08:52 <jmayer> +q
17:08:59 <npdoty> ack jmayer
17:09:00 <johnsimpson> q+
17:09:03 <fielding> Peter: that's a mouthful, now ready to open q
17:09:29 <aleecia> jonathan, partly breaking up; hard to hear
17:09:51 <npdoty> jmayer, I can't hear you
17:10:07 <fielding> jmayer: I am uncomfortable with the process of work here. This is the third unilateral document that has been brought to the WG [broken up]
17:10:10 <aleecia> losing you again
17:10:15 <Brooks> still can't hear
17:10:29 <Brooks> now audible
17:10:38 <justin> I am uncomfrotable with the complaining about discomfort.  The group has tried and failed for 2+ years to generate consensus.  This was a good faith effort to identify a potential path toward consensus.  I appreciate the chairs and W3C staff iterating to try to drive this forward.
17:10:52 <justin> s/uncomfrotable/uncomfortable
17:11:15 <fielding> … the first was a discussion framework, then an end of meeting summary, and those docs were pitched as having no decision impact
17:11:18 <eberkower> eberkower has joined #dnt
17:11:22 <Chris_IAB> can't hear
17:11:23 <npdoty> I think jmayer's three documents are: draft framework, post-meeting consensus action summary, June draft
17:11:26 <aleecia> silence
17:11:29 <WileyS> Hard to follow - is the conversation broken up for everyone else?
17:11:32 <peterswire> q?
17:11:38 <johnsimpson> can't hear
17:11:42 <Joanne> yes Shane.  can't hear him
17:11:45 <fielding> … subsequently, both documents have been used as a description of the WG's work rather than proposals
17:12:15 <npdoty> ... not a political body, but a technical body, should work in a more transparent way, get back to that
17:12:45 <fielding> … I am not willing to work this way. This is not a political process where behind the scenes negotiation determines what is in the document. This is supposed to be a public process where input is in the working group forums.
17:12:53 <aleecia> +1
17:12:59 <peterswire> q?
17:13:11 <fielding> johnsimpson: [scribe missed]
17:13:13 <npdoty> ack johnsimpson
17:13:32 <npdoty> johnsimpson: concern about lack of non-normative text
17:14:00 <npdoty> ... need text to explain what the normative text means, and as in the de-identified discussion, lack of non-normative agreement can sometimes paper over gaps / lack of agreement
17:14:12 <johnsimpson> I expressed my concern about the lack of non-normative text. You need use cases and explanation of what text means...
17:14:17 <aleecia> uh.
17:14:22 <fielding> peter: I understand that folks have concern, but this is an attempt by the chair and the W3C staff to find a path of convergence
17:14:26 <jmayer> Justin, if we don't have consensus, so be it. But that's no excuse for short-cutting the transparent processes.
17:14:27 <rvaneijk> sudden end of the meeting...
17:14:28 <WileyS> Guess the call is now over.  :-)
17:14:31 <jmayer> That was abrupt.
17:14:32 <aleecia> wow, ok
17:14:35 <rvaneijk> strange process..
17:14:41 <Chapell> wait - what happened?
17:14:44 <Chris_IAB> Wiley, lol
17:14:54 <justin> jmayer, I don't see how putting forward a proposal isn't a transparent process.
17:14:54 <aleecia> do we have a process forward?
17:14:57 <npdoty> ... continue on mailing list and on call next wednesday
17:15:01 <rvaneijk> no,
17:15:02 <WileyS> Have a great day everyone.  L8R
17:15:04 <peterswire> there were no more comments on the list, and that's why we ended
17:15:04 <aleecia> is there a time in which comments are due, and if so at what level?
17:15:09 <johnsimpson> there was nobody in sparkers queue so call was ended
17:15:29 <fielding> john, can you place your comment in IRC?
17:15:33 <Chris_IAB> justin, I think jmayer's concern is that it's the only proposal getting to move forward...
17:15:43 <Chapell> I was under the impression that we might open up to more specific questions about the proposal(?)
17:15:46 <johnsimpson> roy it's there. Nick put it in too
17:15:54 <Chris_IAB> Chapell, you would be wrong
17:15:54 <fielding> thanks
17:15:58 <Chapell> perhaps that's for next week?
17:16:02 <jmayer> Exactly, Chris. We agree!
17:16:14 <johnsimpson> thanks for scribing Roy
17:16:29 <npdoty> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:16:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/06/12-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
17:16:48 <npdoty> (not listing attendees, because Zakim didn't work for us today.)
17:17:30 <kulick_> kulick_ has joined #dnt
17:17:55 <jmayer> These documents are negotiated in a closed manner, get an imprimatur of the group's approval / legitimacy by default, and are the only welcome contenders. They're negotiated in a closed manner. And they're the only contenders. But yet, they get pitched as casual discussion-starters.
17:18:19 <jmayer> Erm.
17:18:20 <jmayer> These documents are negotiated in a closed manner, get an imprimatur of the group's approval / legitimacy by default, and are the only welcome contenders. But yet, they get pitched as casual discussion-starters.
17:19:52 <justin> Chris_IAB, there are plenty of other proposals out there.
17:32:53 <hefferjr> hefferjr has joined #dnt
18:45:12 <BillScannell> BillScannell has joined #dnt
18:48:43 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
20:06:15 <kulick> kulick has joined #dnt
20:37:00 <Zakim> restarting bot in 5 minutes in hopes of clearing problem condition
20:41:29 <kulick_> kulick_ has joined #dnt
20:56:41 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
21:53:11 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
23:47:46 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt