IRC log of dnt on 2013-06-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:30:31 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:30:31 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:30:33 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:30:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #dnt
15:30:35 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
15:30:35 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:30:36 [trackbot]
Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:30:36 [trackbot]
Date: 26 June 2013
15:30:41 [tlr]
zakim, this will be TRACK
15:30:41 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 30 minutes
15:38:38 [ninjamarnau]
ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
15:40:04 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
15:45:03 [eberkower]
eberkower has joined #dnt
15:46:42 [moneill2]
moneill2 has joined #dnt
15:48:00 [Thomas_Schauf]
Thomas_Schauf has joined #dnt
15:50:35 [npdoty]
trackbot, start meeting
15:50:37 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:50:39 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
15:50:39 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:50:40 [trackbot]
Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:50:40 [trackbot]
Date: 26 June 2013
15:52:17 [efelten]
efelten has joined #dnt
15:55:36 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:55:45 [Zakim]
+ +1.609.258.aaaa
15:55:45 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-781
15:55:45 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
15:55:46 [Zakim]
15:56:14 [Zakim]
15:56:19 [tlr]
zakim, drop thomas
15:56:19 [Zakim]
Thomas is being disconnected
15:56:20 [Zakim]
15:56:23 [efelten]
Zakim, aaaa is me
15:56:23 [Zakim]
+efelten; got it
15:56:25 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-781
15:56:25 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
15:56:27 [Zakim]
15:56:32 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.654.aabb
15:56:42 [Zakim]
15:56:44 [tlr]
zakim, I am tomas
15:56:44 [Zakim]
sorry, tlr, I do not see a party named 'tomas'
15:56:47 [tlr]
zakim, I am thomas
15:56:47 [Zakim]
ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
15:56:48 [rachel_n_thomas]
rachel_n_thomas has joined #dnt
15:56:50 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
15:56:51 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
15:56:52 [eberkower]
aabb is eberkower
15:56:59 [npdoty]
Zakim, aabb is eberkower
15:56:59 [Zakim]
+eberkower; got it
15:57:01 [tlr]
ack thomas
15:57:05 [Richard_comScore]
Richard_comScore has joined #dnt
15:57:12 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
15:57:13 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
15:57:31 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.973.aacc
15:57:40 [paulohm]
paulohm has joined #dnt
15:57:42 [aerber]
aerber has joined #dnt
15:57:53 [Brooks]
Brooks has joined #dnt
15:58:02 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.478.aadd
15:58:11 [Richard_comScore]
Nick, Adam Phillips representing ESOMAR will be calling in from the UK - he is unsure how his number will show up, but if you see a strange/UK number, it's him
15:58:16 [Yianni]
Yianni has joined #DNT
15:58:30 [rvaneijk]
rvaneijk has joined #dnt
15:58:31 [Zakim]
15:58:33 [rachel_n_thomas]
zakim, 1.202.478.aadd is rachel_n_thomas
15:58:33 [Zakim]
sorry, rachel_n_thomas, I do not recognize a party named '1.202.478.aadd'
15:58:40 [npdoty]
Zakim, aadd is rachel_n_thomas
15:58:40 [Zakim]
+rachel_n_thomas; got it
15:58:46 [rachel_n_thomas]
thanks nick :)
15:58:49 [rachel_n_thomas]
(i'm rusty)
15:58:54 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.587.aaee
15:59:10 [Yianni]
Zakim, aaee is yianni
15:59:10 [Zakim]
+yianni; got it
15:59:15 [Yianni]
zakim, mute me
15:59:16 [Zakim]
yianni should now be muted
15:59:25 [Zakim]
+ +49.431.98.aaff
15:59:33 [Zakim]
15:59:42 [Zakim]
+ +1.215.480.aagg
15:59:44 [ninjamarnau]
zakim, aaff is ninjamarnau
15:59:44 [Zakim]
+ninjamarnau; got it
15:59:47 [jchester2]
jchester2 has joined #dnt
15:59:49 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.326.aahh
15:59:50 [Zakim]
+ +1.917.934.aaii
15:59:57 [paulohm]
zakim, aahh is paulohm
15:59:58 [Zakim]
+paulohm; got it
15:59:59 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:00:04 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #dnt
16:00:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.331.aajj
16:00:12 [Zakim]
+ +1.323.253.aakk
16:00:14 [npdoty]
Zakim, aacc may be paul_glist
16:00:14 [Zakim]
+paul_glist?; got it
16:00:18 [Zakim]
16:00:20 [Zakim]
16:00:26 [Zakim]
16:00:28 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.836.aall
16:00:35 [Zakim]
16:00:38 [kulick]
kulick has joined #dnt
16:00:39 [jchester2]
zakim, mute me
16:00:39 [Zakim]
16:00:39 [Zakim]
jchester2 should now be muted
16:00:44 [Ari]
Ari has joined #dnt
16:00:57 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:00:59 [moneill2]
zakim. [IPCaller] is me
16:01:03 [Zakim]
16:01:13 [Zakim]
16:01:18 [Zakim]
+ +31.65.141.aamm
16:01:24 [jeffwilson]
jeffwilson has joined #dnt
16:01:26 [rvaneijk]
Zakim, aamm is me
16:01:27 [Zakim]
+rvaneijk; got it
16:01:37 [robsherman]
robsherman has joined #dnt
16:01:41 [Zakim]
16:01:49 [WaltMichel]
WaltMichel has joined #DNT
16:01:55 [Zakim]
16:01:57 [dsinger]
zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:01:57 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
16:01:59 [BillScannell]
BillScannell has joined #dnt
16:01:59 [vinay]
vinay has joined #dnt
16:02:06 [Zakim]
16:02:09 [Aleecia]
Aleecia has joined #dnt
16:02:10 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.391.aann
16:02:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.629.aaoo
16:02:12 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
16:02:12 [justin]
justin has joined #dnt
16:02:15 [robsherman]
zakim, aann is robsherman
16:02:15 [Zakim]
+robsherman; got it
16:02:18 [peterswire]
peterswire has joined #dnt
16:02:27 [peterswire]
I'm calling in now; had a glitch
16:02:29 [Joanne]
Joanne has joined #DNT
16:02:34 [susanisrael]
Zakim, 917.934.------ is me
16:02:34 [Zakim]
sorry, susanisrael, I do not recognize a party named '917.934.------'
16:02:44 [Jay_Jin]
Jay_Jin has joined #dnt
16:02:45 [Zakim]
+ +1.212.844.aapp
16:02:46 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
16:02:53 [johnsimpson]
zakim, aaoo is johnsimpson
16:02:53 [Zakim]
+johnsimpson; got it
16:02:57 [jackhobaugh]
jackhobaugh has joined #dnt
16:02:59 [cOlsen]
cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:03:07 [dsinger]
zakim, who is making noise?
16:03:07 [Zakim]
16:03:19 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: npdoty (6%), [Microsoft] (57%), +1.212.844.aapp (35%)
16:03:22 [Zakim]
16:03:25 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
16:03:27 [JC]
JC has joined #DNT
16:03:35 [npdoty]
Zakim, ??P22 may be schunter
16:03:35 [Zakim]
+schunter?; got it
16:03:38 [Zakim]
+ +1.301.365.aaqq
16:03:45 [Zakim]
+ +1.347.272.aarr
16:03:48 [AdamP]
AdamP has joined #dnt
16:03:58 [Zakim]
16:04:00 [Zakim]
16:04:02 [johnsimpson]
OK here, no noise
16:04:08 [Zakim]
+ +1.647.274.aass
16:04:18 [peter-4As]
peter-4As has joined #dnt
16:04:18 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
16:04:26 [Zakim]
16:04:29 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.347.aatt
16:04:34 [David_MacMillan]
David_MacMillan has joined #dnt
16:04:34 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:04:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.365.aauu
16:04:54 [Zakim]
+ +49.211.600.4.aavv
16:04:54 [Zakim]
16:04:54 [Zakim]
16:04:55 [dstark]
dstark has joined #dnt
16:04:56 [jackhobaugh]
Zakim, aatt is jackhobaugh
16:04:56 [Zakim]
+jackhobaugh; got it
16:05:04 [Zakim]
16:05:34 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.666.aaww
16:05:36 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.787.aaxx
16:05:42 [Zakim]
16:05:44 [Chapell]
zakim, aaww is chapell
16:05:44 [Zakim]
+chapell; got it
16:05:48 [Zakim]
16:05:54 [Yianni]
I can scribe
16:05:55 [npdoty]
scribenick: Yianni
16:06:08 [JC]
16:06:13 [Yianni]
Peter: cannon can you scribe
16:06:14 [JC]
yANNI is up
16:06:18 [Zakim]
16:06:24 [vincent]
vincent has joined #dnt
16:06:35 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:06:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see efelten, Thomas (muted), RichardWeaver, eberkower, npdoty, paul_glist?, rachel_n_thomas, Brooks, yianni (muted), ninjamarnau, Wendy, +1.215.480.aagg, paulohm,
16:06:35 [Zakim]
... susanisrael, +1.323.253.aakk, +1.202.331.aajj, hefferjr, +1.408.836.aall, jchester2 (muted), WileyS, JeffWilson, schunter?, vinay, [Apple], hwest, robsherman, johnsimpson,
16:06:40 [robsherman]
16:06:40 [Zakim]
... +1.212.844.aapp, [CDT], Joanne, peterswire, +1.347.272.aarr, [FTC], [Microsoft.a], +1.647.274.aass, Chris_Pedigo, jackhobaugh, +1.650.365.aauu, +49.211.600.4.aavv, ??P74,
16:06:40 [Zakim]
... chapell, +1.202.787.aaxx, [Microsoft], rvaneijk
16:06:40 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:06:42 [jmayer]
jmayer has joined #dnt
16:06:44 [Yianni]
Peter: Rob Sherman could you scribe starting at 1:30
16:06:51 [robsherman]
16:06:51 [npdoty]
Zakim, aarr is jay_jin
16:06:51 [Zakim]
+jay_jin; got it
16:06:53 [Zakim]
16:07:02 [schunter]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:07:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see efelten, Thomas (muted), RichardWeaver, eberkower, npdoty, paul_glist?, rachel_n_thomas, Brooks, yianni (muted), ninjamarnau, Wendy, +1.215.480.aagg, paulohm,
16:07:06 [JC]
16:07:06 [Zakim]
... susanisrael, +1.323.253.aakk, +1.202.331.aajj, hefferjr, +1.408.836.aall, jchester2 (muted), WileyS, JeffWilson, schunter?, vinay, [Apple], hwest, robsherman, johnsimpson,
16:07:06 [Zakim]
... +1.212.844.aapp, [CDT], Joanne, peterswire, jay_jin, [FTC], [Microsoft.a], +1.647.274.aass, Chris_Pedigo, jackhobaugh, +1.650.365.aauu, +49.211.600.4.aavv, ??P74, chapell,
16:07:06 [Zakim]
... +1.202.787.aaxx, [Microsoft], rvaneijk, Dan_Auerbach
16:07:06 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:07:12 [npdoty]
Zakim, aass is dstark
16:07:12 [Zakim]
+dstark; got it
16:07:19 [Yianni]
Peter: Yianni first, JC 12:45, Heather at 1:30
16:07:20 [dan_auerbach]
dan_auerbach has joined #dnt
16:07:37 [rvaneijk_]
rvaneijk_ has joined #dnt
16:07:46 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
16:07:49 [Yianni]
...introductory comments, lots of hardwork from people
16:07:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.827.aayy
16:07:58 [Yianni]
...goal has been to get one clear document in front of us
16:07:59 [susanisrael]
Thank you to w3c staff for coordinating
16:08:04 [dan_auerbach]
yes, big thanks to Nick for the incredible job he's done collecting and organizing all of these proposals!
16:08:06 [Yianni]
...clear to everyone what the changes are off of that
16:08:11 [Zakim]
16:08:22 [Yianni]
...actual number of issues is not in the hundreds range
16:08:28 [Zakim]
16:08:29 [wseltzer]
[order of dicsussion for today: ]
16:08:30 [Yianni]
...history of discussing many of these issues
16:08:40 [Yianni]
...challenges we always have is how to get some final round
16:08:59 [Yianni]
...US Senate doing this with immigration, and with the EU data protection regulation
16:09:07 [Yianni] some point you need to slim down the issues
16:09:15 [Yianni]
...we are trying to do this with maximum transparency
16:09:35 [Yianni]
...Peter is recording the fac that he is meeting with people
16:09:50 [Yianni] goal today is a human readable version
16:09:52 [Zakim]
16:09:53 [Zakim]
16:09:55 [moneill2]
zakim,[IPCaller] is me
16:09:55 [Zakim]
+moneill2; got it
16:10:01 [jchester2]
It's a rush to judgement--not a "slimming" done--thats a rationalization to justify a process that doesn't serve privacy well.
16:10:02 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaxx is BillScannell
16:10:02 [Zakim]
+BillScannell; got it
16:10:07 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
16:10:08 [Yianni]
...give the people who proposed changes to briefly, a minute, what the changes are and why they should be in
16:10:20 [Yianni]
...I've grouped in ways that I thought made sense, but I am sure I made mistakes
16:10:31 [Yianni]
...hearing the basic reason for change of proposal
16:10:50 [mecallahan]
mecallahan has joined #dnt
16:10:50 [Yianni]
...what we are going to do is highlight presentation from people who have submitted change proposals
16:11:00 [Yianni]
...we are going to start moving forward
16:11:13 [tlr]
ack thomas
16:11:15 [Yianni]
...Thomas is there a problem on the bridge
16:11:18 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
16:11:18 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
16:11:23 [Yianni]
Thomas: working on it
16:11:34 [Yianni]
Peter: I am going to move through the list as stated
16:11:50 [amyc]
amyc has joined #dnt
16:11:55 [Yianni]
...first one is that the June draft did not contain public commitment
16:12:15 [Yianni]
...myself and W3C staff made a mistake in leaving this out of June Draft, we are inclined to put it back in
16:12:30 [Zakim]
- +1.202.331.aajj
16:12:33 [Yianni]
...if you disagree with that, putting it in as an editorial change
16:12:34 [PaulGlist]
PaulGlist has joined #dnt
16:12:37 [npdoty]
Zakim, mute me
16:12:37 [Zakim]
npdoty should now be muted
16:12:50 [Yianni] editor process tries to have spelling correct and make language consistent
16:13:00 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-skype
16:13:00 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
16:13:01 [Zakim]
16:13:06 [amyc]
16:13:06 [Yianni]
...we will bullet editorial changes, if you object or want different language, please respond
16:13:12 [Zakim]
16:13:12 [tlr]
zakim, drop thomas
16:13:13 [Zakim]
Thomas is being disconnected
16:13:13 [Zakim]
16:13:17 [Yianni]
...we will not make editorial changes without you seeing
16:13:20 [tlr]
if somebody's stuck with dial-in, please retry now
16:13:24 [Yianni]
..that is number 1
16:13:26 [amyc]
16:13:26 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
16:13:28 [wseltzer]
sidstamm and any others with connection challenges, dial *0
16:13:34 [Yianni]
...For geolocation many people comments
16:13:40 [Yianni]
...David could you explain your proposal
16:13:57 [Yianni]
David: I suggested that we delete it
16:14:14 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
16:14:21 [Yianni]
...I would be comfortably amending that this is a clear specific additional restriction
16:14:22 [hefferjr]
hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:14:27 [Zakim]
16:14:30 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-781
16:14:30 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
16:14:31 [Zakim]
16:14:33 [Yianni]
...okay with either deleting or amending
16:14:38 [tlr]
tlr has changed the topic to: if you have connection challenges, dial *0 instead of a code
16:14:39 [npdoty]
+1 to dsinger, clarifying that it's a separate additional restriction, existing agreement
16:14:48 [tlr]
zakim, I am thomas
16:14:48 [Zakim]
ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
16:14:50 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
16:14:50 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
16:14:57 [amyc]
16:15:02 [wseltzer]
s/sidstamm and any others with connection challenges, dial *0//
16:15:03 [Yianni]
Peter: ask for in connection with this, if you plan on writing perfecting amendments in the spirit that David just mentioned, could you indicate by +1
16:15:23 [Zakim]
16:15:30 [WileyS]
Propose to remvoe this section completely as this information is not "tracking" as its not extracted from "cross site" data collection and use.
16:15:32 [sidstamm]
Zakim, Mozilla has sidstamm
16:15:32 [Zakim]
+sidstamm; got it
16:15:36 [sidstamm]
wseltzer, thanks.
16:15:38 [Yianni]
...expect to be offering text +1 that is consistent with David Singer, if you expect to do language different from David Singer hit -1
16:15:46 [WileyS]
16:15:49 [npdoty]
+1 to help dsinger with the suggestion just made
16:15:53 [johnsimpson]
we're still trying to digest all these proposals I don't know what I'll do
16:15:54 [Yianni]
...+1 is friendly, -1 is different from proposed change
16:16:12 [dwainber_]
/join #dnt
16:16:12 [Chapell]
16:16:19 [jchester2]
I agree with John. Peter, I object. Ths process is confusing.
16:16:19 [Aleecia]
Shane, we've been at consensus to address geoip for over two years
16:16:22 [Yianni]
...the next part is various proposals around definitions of first parties
16:16:22 [Ari]
16:16:29 [dan_auerbach]
I don't think Lee is on the call
16:16:31 [dwainber_]
dwainber_ has joined #dnt
16:16:32 [Yianni]
...Lee Tien had the first suggestion
16:16:34 [dan_auerbach]
he's on a plane
16:16:43 [Yianni]
...Lee is unable to make the call
16:16:49 [jeffwilson]
16:17:13 [wseltzer]
[Lee's email:]
16:17:13 [Aleecia]
The text in the WD
16:17:22 [susanisrael]
*dsinger, peter collected names of people who want to comment. No resolution.
16:17:24 [Yianni]
John Simpson: reading an email from Lee, the consumer side logic is simple, there is a lack of consensus.
16:17:29 [WileyS]
Aleecia, I explained this in more detail on the mailing list. 2 years ago it made sense but now that we have a definition of tracking this clearly doesn't fit in -AND- considerable work is going on elsewhere to address precise geolocation in a much more thorough manner
16:17:37 [Yianni]
Peter: part of today is understanding what the issues are
16:17:38 [npdoty]
dsinger, I think the request was just to find the people who wanted to add friendly or counter amendments
16:17:47 [Yianni]
John could you include the language in the minutes?
16:18:02 [Yianni]
Peter: this is a debate at a big scale, rather than perfecting language
16:18:05 [wseltzer]
Lee, via email:
16:18:05 [wseltzer]
On first parties and affiliates, I think the consumer-side logic is obvious: expectations and data dispersion. Industry has its reasons for an expansive view, of course.
16:18:08 [wseltzer]
My purpose is not to argue but to reiterate what I see as a lack of consensus--as distinguished from convenience or being part of a large compromise. I have heard occasional complaints about how third parties are differentially affected, or how large first parties are advantaged by an expansive definition of first parties.
16:18:08 [jchester2]
Include me in writing text on geo-location
16:18:12 [JoAnn_Covington]
JoAnn_Covington has joined #dnt
16:18:16 [Yianni] one on definition of first party is Chris Pedigo
16:18:29 [Yianni]
Chris: the current language requires a link on each page to a list of affiliates
16:18:44 [Aleecia]
That's a fine discussion of additional information for the chairs to evaluate re-opening if they choose to, but that is a decision point.
16:18:47 [Yianni]
...I do not know if that address questions of how data is used, restrictions are in place
16:18:56 [Yianni] also does not capture how a use might be best educated
16:19:12 [Yianni]
...instead of listing companies in corporate unbrella, and instead list brands
16:19:25 [Yianni] FTC report, common branding was also allowed
16:19:40 [Yianni]
...totally agree to have transparency, but what more user friendly transparency
16:19:45 [Yianni]
...amendment to do it better
16:19:53 [Yianni]
Amy: very similar concerns to Chris
16:19:55 [Aleecia]
Unless and u til the chairs agree to reopen, geoip is closed at consensus
16:20:13 [Yianni]
The language in specification did not get at heard of debate, think one click at all time is unworkable
16:20:21 [Yianni]
...can work with Chris on language
16:20:29 [rigo]
conference is full, no more parties can be added at this time.
16:20:44 [Yianni]
...very impressed you could organize, we are not in a position to make substantive suggestions to these proposals
16:20:49 [WileyS]
Aleecia - I'll submit a formal objection and provide the required "material and new" arguments to consider to stay within the appropriate process.
16:20:51 [Yianni]
...more work to review and feedback in the future
16:21:00 [Yianni]
Peter: that is exactly right, much of it will be on list
16:21:06 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
16:21:10 [Yianni]
...we will have more details of order of things discussed on list and on the calls
16:21:13 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.595.aazz
16:21:17 [WileyS]
16:21:18 [robsherman]
16:21:20 [johnsimpson]
16:21:21 [susanisrael]
16:21:27 [Yianni]
...ask if others would want to work with CHris and Amy, please list
16:21:27 [vinay]
16:21:29 [jchester2]
16:21:30 [Yianni]
16:21:39 [Zakim]
16:21:48 [Yianni]
...we would see if we could consensus that way
16:21:49 [Aleecia]
Shane, thanks; formal objection isn't needed. But this is something for the co-chairs to choose to reopen or not
16:21:56 [Zakim]
16:22:03 [tlr]
zakim, aazz is probably BillScannell
16:22:03 [Zakim]
+BillScannell?; got it
16:22:15 [Yianni]
Peter: ALan could you speak first about use of 1st party data in a 3rd party context
16:22:21 [npdoty]
to help with Chris/Amy on affiliates language: WileyS robsherman susanisrael vinay Yianni johnsimpson jchester2
16:22:26 [Yianni]
Alan: sent something in at 11:30 this morning that gets to it
16:22:42 [WileyS]
Aleecia - formal objection can force the issue open outside of co-chair agreement so I'm ready to go that route if necessary
16:23:02 [Yianni]
...current context suggests that a 1st party cannot use information in the 3rd party experience
16:23:06 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.787.bbaa
16:23:08 [npdoty]
help on geolocation, friendly: npdoty, counter: ari, jeff, alan, shane
16:23:19 [Yianni]
John: Yes you may while you are in a relationship with first party, there is a certain level of trust
16:23:22 [Aleecia]
That's fine, and if denied reopening, that's appropriate. I'm trying to save you some work is all.
16:23:30 [Yianni] expectation that it would carry over when functioning as a third party
16:23:39 [Yianni]
...glad to work with Alan on language
16:23:52 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
16:23:55 [vinay]
16:23:57 [robsherman]
+1 to participate in the discussion, not to agree on substance
16:23:58 [Yianni]
Peter: gues is that people in first party context that would like to be engaged in discussion. please list a +1
16:23:58 [jchester2]
16:24:00 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
16:24:07 [WileyS]
16:24:07 [dwainberg]
16:24:10 [justin]
16:24:13 [Yianni]
...I think we understand that concept
16:24:19 [justin]
Peter, I have a question about this one.
16:24:22 [johnsimpson]
16:24:36 [Yianni] the extent Alan and John can work with others, please include Yianni
16:24:37 [amyc]
16:24:42 [npdoty]
help alan and john on first party restrictions: ChrisPedigoOPA, vinay, jchester2 dwainber_ ; counter: wileys, robsherman
16:24:49 [npdoty]
ack justin
16:24:59 [Yianni]
Justin: in previous versions we parked this issue, some thought it was okay to use first party data in this context
16:25:09 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.331.bbbb
16:25:23 [Yianni]
...Alan seems to think its prohibited under the June Draft. Peter do you have an oppinion
16:25:34 [Yianni]
Peter: no language that explicitly says that, comfortable saying that
16:25:43 [Yianni]
...I am not sure I agree with Alan that it explicitly bars
16:25:55 [Yianni]
John: we are adding that makes it clear and that it was left out
16:26:12 [Yianni]
...i think it is implicit that a first party can use information they get from a third party
16:26:18 [Yianni]
...why we need language on data append
16:26:30 [Yianni] is the same we discussed some time back, all the same language
16:26:49 [Yianni] has been extensively discussed, I answered all the questions in the list
16:26:52 [Zakim]
16:27:09 [Yianni]
Peter: if people have language around John's proposal. A lot of people are not in favor of it
16:27:12 [amyc]
I think that there is substantive disagreement on append proposal
16:27:41 [Yianni]
John: David Singer suggested use of the workd tracking data, so John may adjust proposal to incorporate tracking data in data append section
16:27:47 [jchester2]
16:27:54 [Aleecia]
0 to rejoin does not work; conference is full
16:28:03 [tlr]
aleecia, *0
16:28:04 [Yianni]
Peter: anyone who would want to work with John to work on append language, please hit +1
16:28:04 [rigo]
John, we should also encourage first parties to submit themselves under 3rd party restrictions voluntarily
16:28:09 [dsinger]
Yes, I suggested that if we call the spec "Do not track", and we define "track(ing)" we should connect the dots and say that what you don't do is 'track' (as defined) (in general, modulo consent and permitted uses)
16:28:12 [susanisrael]
agree with amy that there is substantial disagreement
16:28:14 [Aleecia]
Thank you
16:28:28 [Yianni]
Peter: I understand that there is disagreement with proposal
16:28:40 [Yianni]
Susan: language that agrees with them or has a response to proposal
16:28:49 [Zakim]
16:28:57 [Chapell]
16:29:01 [Yianni]
Peter: on this one, I am asking for +1 language for people who would like to work with John on language
16:29:09 [johnsimpson]
16:29:10 [Yianni]
...I am guessing people who oppose will oppose the whole package
16:29:11 [tlr]
ack thomas
16:29:15 [johnsimpson]
16:29:30 [Yianni]
THomas: if there are people that wish to work on counter proposal, something else that responds to the same issue
16:29:45 [Yianni]
...want to work on counter proposal, then click -1
16:29:55 [Yianni]
...could be as simple as no change or a paragraph of text
16:29:58 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
16:29:59 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
16:30:00 [johnsimpson]
clarifying question??
16:30:07 [tlr]
16:30:11 [Aleecia]
Zakim, mute me
16:30:11 [Zakim]
Aleecia should now be muted
16:30:14 [Yianni]
Peter: Thomas, right now the base text is the June draft and does not contain language
16:30:20 [Yianni]
...that is there unless we accept a change
16:30:25 [tlr]
ack thomas
16:30:29 [Yianni]
...leaving June Draft in place is not a counter proposal
16:30:35 [jmayer]
16:30:38 [johnsimpson]
16:30:42 [Yianni]
...counter proposal would be to address the issue in a different way
16:30:53 [Yianni]
...staying silent would keep June Draft in place
16:31:07 [Aleecia]
When you say "unless we accept a change," does that mean the TPWG, or does that mean leadership?
16:31:09 [Yianni]
Thomas: a no change proposal does not require thought to complete
16:31:21 [Aleecia]
That is, who is "we"?
16:31:23 [Yianni] we look at proposals, we may be in a situation that everyone agrees on a change proposal
16:31:32 [Yianni]
...June draft was bad and we all agree on that
16:31:41 [Yianni]
...that is called consensus
16:31:58 [Yianni] would be useful to explicitly say that we prefer no change to the June Draft
16:32:11 [Yianni]
...if no change is on the proposal, you do not need to say anything
16:32:24 [Yianni]
...if there is no change proposal, then we stick to June draft
16:32:33 [jmayer]
I think the June Draft shouldn't have special weight as against an alternative proposal.
16:32:43 [johnsimpson]
16:32:45 [wseltzer]
[no-change proposal]
16:32:46 [susanisrael]
*sorry to have been dense about the +1/-1. I felt like it wasn't consistent. didn't mean to create a distraction.
16:32:47 [johnsimpson]
16:32:48 [Yianni]
...if there is one change proposal, and they want to stick to June draft, please write a statement keep June Draft
16:32:52 [rigo]
jmayer, doesn't work.
16:33:00 [Yianni]
...if anyone gets confused, we will be able to fix
16:33:07 [Yianni]
...this is a point that is best explained in writing
16:33:37 [Yianni]
...for purposes of this call, focus on people who want to help people with a change proposal because they are on the same page or come up with a compromise, or people with a counter proposal
16:33:44 [jmayer]
In taking up the June Draft, we used a default decision making process (i.e. no consensus alternative, so go to a default). That posed substantial legitimacy problems, and at minimum, certainly didn't reflect a group decision.
16:33:47 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
16:33:47 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
16:33:53 [Yianni]
Peter: as chair, I will simplify this process.
16:34:05 [Yianni]
Peter: +1 means you will help with change proposal
16:34:10 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
16:34:12 [tlr]
16:34:13 [jmayer]
16:34:14 [Yianni]
...if you want to keep June Draft you do not have to say anything
16:34:19 [Chapell]
16:34:20 [tlr]
ack thomas
16:34:23 [Yianni]
...if you have a counter proposal, please do -1
16:34:28 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
16:34:28 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
16:34:33 [npdoty]
ack johnsimpson
16:34:34 [Yianni]
Thomas: consistent with what I said
16:34:46 [Yianni]
John: we are talking about adding text that does not exist in the draft
16:35:10 [rigo]
as good as it gets, assessment is on chairs
16:35:28 [Yianni]
...what happens that we get to the point that we think this text is as good as it gets, but we have debate in the group how do we deal with
16:35:54 [Yianni]
Peter: goal is to work through the list, second goal is to get people to draft text
16:36:08 [johnsimpson]
16:36:12 [Yianni]
...we are not having the conversation on how this comes together at the end of July, we need to get through the list of issues first
16:36:23 [Yianni]
...Issue 6, Roy had a proposal on service providers
16:36:42 [jmayer]
This seems to me entirely backwards. We've just done a fire drill... without thinking through how it would bring us closer to consensus.
16:37:12 [Yianni]
...went back to previous discussion on service providers, parties other than first party owner that would have access to data who would not be considered another party
16:37:22 [Yianni]
...want to change from service provider to implementation provider
16:37:33 [Yianni]
...does not make a normative difference, that is editorial
16:37:34 [tlr]
on process, here's Nick's previous write-up of the process we will follow:
16:37:39 [schunter]
"paint on the bike shed"
16:37:40 [Yianni]
...the definition is changed
16:37:49 [Yianni]
Peter: both substantive and label change
16:37:50 [npdoty]
the bikeshed/name is a detail we could debate but does not make a substantive difference
16:38:09 [Yianni]
Dan: I basically haven't been tracking the service provider issue as closely as others
16:38:25 [Yianni]
...wanted to make sure some previous text was not dropped on the floor because no one presented objections
16:38:39 [Yianni]
...we have two different proposals, if they both got support we would need to fit them together
16:38:56 [fielding]
16:38:58 [Yianni]
Peter: if you would want to work with Roy, please hit +1
16:39:09 [Aleecia]
16:39:10 [rigo]
+1 as we had 5 times already agreement on this service provider /implmentation partner issue
16:39:18 [Yianni]
...a -1, if you have a counter proposal to what Roy is doing, different substantive direction
16:39:19 [amyc]
+1 to rigo
16:39:21 [jmayer]
16:39:34 [ninjamarnau]
+1 for Dan's draft
16:39:38 [paulohm]
paulohm has joined #dnt
16:39:42 [Yianni]
...Second, Dan brought language from Mozilla/EFF/Standord proposal, +1 would be to work with Dan to perfect
16:39:43 [moneill2]
16:39:51 [Aleecia]
Riffs and I've objected every bloody time, and for you to claim this is agreement is as frustrating as possible.
16:40:00 [jmayer]
16:40:01 [Yianni]
... a -1 would be to work on a counter proposal that is different from Dan's proposal and different from June Draft
16:40:05 [rigo]
where is Dan's proposal?
16:40:08 [amyc]
I think we have two +1 polls going on
16:40:08 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:40:13 [Yianni]
Peter: next thing is third party compliance, Amy had some text on
16:40:40 [laurengelman]
laurengelman has joined #dnt
16:40:42 [npdoty]
helping roy: rigo; helping dan: jmayer, ninja, maybe moneill2
16:40:44 [dan_auerbach]
I haven't read Roy's service provider email yet so can't comment -- apologies
16:40:45 [Yianni]
Amy: For both sections, signal to implementers, regarding the use of identifiers
16:40:58 [jmayer]
npdoty, aleecia too?
16:41:04 [Yianni]
...add technically feasible, using no identifiers at scale
16:41:25 [Yianni]
...discussion about requiring third party auditors, I thought that it was about being internally verifiable
16:41:32 [Yianni]
Peter: two distinct issues
16:41:45 [Yianni]
...first, adding technically feasible when it comes to not using unique identifiers
16:41:55 [npdoty]
on service providers, helping roy: rigo; helping dan: jmayer, ninja, maybe moneill2, Aleecia
16:42:03 [johnsimpson]
16:42:06 [Yianni]
...if you want to perfect that language +1, a -1 would be a counter proposal
16:42:10 [npdoty]
(unless moneill2 or Aleecia intended to work on a third proposal on service provider)
16:42:22 [johnsimpson]
16:42:26 [Yianni]
...second, on audits, internally verifiable rather than third party audits
16:42:40 [Yianni]
...please hit +1 if you want to work on internally verifiable language
16:42:43 [jmayer]
-1, -1
16:42:43 [dan_auerbach]
16:42:48 [dwainberg]
16:42:49 [Yianni]
...hit -1 for any counter proposals
16:43:00 [moneill2]
16:43:03 [Aleecia]
No doty, I suspect I will, but if I can merge with Dan's so much the better. Not optimistic about that, but I'm happy to try
16:43:13 [Yianni]
Peter: David Singer first on definition of tracking
16:43:25 [Aleecia]
Auto correct for the lose today, sorry
16:43:31 [Yianni]
David: Did I make change proposal to the current document
16:43:43 [Yianni]
...Different agenda item on collection and retain
16:44:01 [Yianni]
Peter: Roy you had language on tracking
16:44:20 [tlr]
16:44:21 [Yianni]
Roy: yet another iteration to find a definition of tracking that fits the requirements
16:44:34 [Yianni] would be nice to agree on what we are agreeing to standardize
16:45:00 [Yianni]
Roy: the existing language describes tracking as data collection, it covers anything you might receive
16:45:02 [npdoty]
friendly amendments to amyc: dwainberg, counter-proposals to amyc on audits: jmayer, dan_auerbach, moneill2
16:45:09 [JC]
I'm ready to scribe
16:45:18 [rigo]
-1 to this one
16:45:21 [dsinger]
We are talking about "Tracking is the retention or use, after a network interaction is complete, of data records that are, or can be, associated with a specific user, user agent, or device.", right?
16:45:23 [Yianni] definitino is about following a specific persons accross distinct contexts
16:45:45 [Yianni]
...the retention, use, or sharing of data used outside the current context, covers profile building or anything like it
16:45:47 [dsinger]
to Roy: that's nothing like all the data you might log.
16:45:47 [amyc]
yes to dsinger
16:45:49 [rigo]
because it doubles the first party/third party distinction
16:45:51 [Thomas_Schauf_]
Thomas_Schauf_ has joined #dnt
16:46:01 [Yianni]
Peter: DAA definition uses accross multiple sites
16:46:12 [moneill2]
npdoty, i was referring to "technical feasilbility"
16:46:17 [Yianni]
...getting clarification about how multiple contexts and multiple sites is probably useful
16:46:32 [Yianni]
Amy: notice same issues as Roy
16:46:38 [Yianni]
Yes, JC you can take over
16:46:42 [npdoty]
scribenick: JC
16:47:07 [npdoty]
amyc: suggested a change to the Scope piece, rather than a broad view of tracking, focus on third parties
16:47:13 [tlr]
Amy's change proposal:
16:47:45 [laurengelman]
(is the call line full? my call will not go through)
16:47:49 [dsinger]
that we allow first parties to 'track' doesn't mean its definition is wrong, by the way.
16:47:55 [tlr]
lauren, please call the bridge and dial *0.
16:48:00 [tlr]
(instead of entering the code)
16:48:00 [Zakim]
16:48:00 [JC]
Peter: I think calling it tracking data may be editorial
16:48:03 [tlr]
operator will patch you in
16:48:14 [JC]
... it may be worth commented on by peoplej
16:48:21 [dsinger]
16:48:24 [justin]
16:48:27 [laurengelman]
16:48:28 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
16:48:30 [JC]
... +1 if the term tracking data should be used
16:48:30 [Zakim]
- +49.211.600.4.aavv
16:48:40 [dsinger]
…and yes, I did have a CP to use 'tracking' in the document more
16:48:45 [johnsimpson]
16:48:47 [dan_auerbach]
I am neutral on using the term "tracking data", but the substance of what that term entails is important to me, so not sure if I am neutral or -1
16:48:48 [jchester2]
16:48:53 [Brooks]
16:48:53 [JC]
... -1 is stating that it is moving in the wrong substantive direction
16:49:03 [JC]
... Johnsimpson you have an imput
16:49:17 [npdoty]
work with amy on changing data to tracking data: dsinger, justin, ChrisPedigoOPA; counter: johnsimpson
16:49:22 [tlr]
simpson's proposal:
16:49:30 [JC]
Johnsimpson: As the standard develops some tracking will be allowed under permitted uses
16:49:40 [npdoty]
work with amy on changing data to tracking data: Brooks, dsinger, justin, ChrisPedigoOPA; counter: johnsimpson, jchester
16:49:41 [JC]
... some servers won't participate in permitted uses
16:49:55 [Jay_Jin]
16:49:59 [JC]
... there should be some compliance language that indicates how this works
16:50:11 [tlr]
16:50:11 [trackbot]
ISSUE-119 -- Specify "absolutely not tracking" -- pending review
16:50:11 [trackbot]
16:50:15 [JC]
... compliance language should clarify what is said in TPI
16:50:18 [JC]
16:50:21 [JC]
16:50:27 [tlr]
16:50:37 [rigo]
16:51:03 [JC]
Peter: Add +1 if you want to work with johnsimpson
16:51:07 [npdoty]
+1 (I think we already have agreed text, and may not need more)
16:51:09 [ninjamarnau]
16:51:12 [JC]
... -1 if you have conflicting proposal
16:51:25 [npdoty]
ack jmayer
16:51:28 [jmayer]
phone trouble
16:51:28 [JC]
Peter: jmayer could you address tracking definition
16:51:34 [jmayer]
workng on fixing mute thingy
16:51:48 [JC]
... we will go to jmayer later
16:52:08 [WileyS]
+ 1 to work with Amy on her definition of Tracking
16:52:23 [JC]
Jmayer: I propose a change indicating collection in the defintion
16:52:52 [JC]
Peter: Jmayer lets go to defintion of protocol and transient data
16:52:59 [npdoty]
working with john simpson on "not tracking": npdoty, ninjamarnau
16:53:05 [JC]
Jmayer: I 'm concerned by transient data definition
16:53:07 [dsinger]
-1 to jmayer's
16:53:14 [tlr]
mayer's proposal on "tracking":
16:53:28 [JC]
... the line I try to draw is between protocol information and info the website solicits
16:53:28 [tlr]
mayer's proposal on "transient":
16:53:56 [JC]
... they may have different privacy requirement vs. saying everything goes during a transcient period
16:54:09 [Aleecia]
16:54:11 [tlr]
16:54:18 [susanisrael]
16:54:22 [JC]
Peter: I have not lived through these discussions
16:54:23 [Aleecia]
(has been discussed)
16:54:25 [Zakim]
16:54:30 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
16:54:47 [JC]
Peter: Lee wrote something similar, any comments?
16:54:52 [dsinger]
I also wrote something
16:54:57 [npdoty]
jmayer, that sounds like Lee's proposal on short-term
16:54:59 [Zakim]
16:55:04 [JC]
Roy: I haven't looked through Lee's proposals
16:55:15 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
16:55:16 [fielding]
that was Dan
16:55:21 [moneill2]
16:55:22 [JC]
Peter: +1 for work on protocol and trnasient data definitions
16:55:23 [tlr]
s/Roy: /Dan: /
16:55:26 [dan_auerbach]
16:55:33 [dsinger]
16:55:33 [susanisrael]
*jc, i think that was dan auerbach not roy speaking
16:55:34 [JC]
... -1 for a counter proposal
16:55:35 [rvaneijk]
rvaneijk has joined #dnt
16:55:43 [efelten]
This is a poll on substantive views, or on willingness to work on language?
16:55:50 [tlr]
willingness to work on language
16:55:55 [fielding]
-1 (cookie are obviously protocol data, so use a different name if you want to make that distinction)
16:56:03 [JC]
Peter: jmayer do you have a definition of collection
16:56:09 [Zakim]
16:56:12 [JC]
Jmayer: I believe i sent one to the list
16:56:29 [JC]
Peter: Amyc do you have language around collection and share?
16:56:38 [susanisrael]
i think this is a poll re: willingness to work on language consistent with vs. opposed to a given proposal
16:56:44 [tlr]
Amy's language on collect / retain / share:
16:56:51 [JC]
Amyc: I submitted language on share to address concerns that current language is quite broad
16:57:09 [JC]
... I proposed language that more directly addresses concerns
16:57:18 [tlr]
Pedigo on "share":
16:57:24 [Zakim]
16:57:30 [JC]
... other is editorial. Pass is used but not defined. We should fix that.
16:57:36 [rvaneijk_]
rvaneijk_ has joined #dnt
16:57:40 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
happy to work with Amy to merge our proposals
16:57:43 [JC]
Peter: I have not looked at issue, but it makes since
16:57:51 [wseltzer]
16:58:12 [JC]
Amyc: Concern is about first party being held responsible for data sharing
16:58:14 [tlr]
zakim, call nick-mobile
16:58:14 [Zakim]
I am sorry, tlr; I do not know a number for nick-mobile
16:58:18 [tlr]
zakim, call npdoty-mobile
16:58:18 [Zakim]
I am sorry, tlr; I do not know a number for npdoty-mobile
16:58:20 [tlr]
zakim, call npdoty
16:58:20 [Zakim]
I am sorry, tlr; I do not know a number for npdoty
16:58:26 [JC]
Amyc: this is not about appending but sharing
16:58:40 [JC]
Peter: The term share is broader than some may like
16:58:52 [dsinger]
my language on collect/retain:
16:58:54 [rigo]
16:59:04 [JC]
Peter: Dsinger do you have language on sharing
16:59:06 [rigo]
I have a clarification question
16:59:33 [JC]
Dsinger: The first talks about transient which is not defined. What does it have to do with sharing?
16:59:57 [rigo]
retaining == collection IMHO
17:00:06 [Aleecia]
I have a lot of background noise here, but the notes I sent from walking through the doc included a text suggestion from JC on this area
17:00:07 [JC]
... We should look at retain and not focus on transient period
17:00:09 [tlr]
17:00:25 [justin]
17:00:26 [JC]
Peter: Dsinger is this similar to Amy?
17:00:29 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
17:00:30 [robsherman]
17:00:43 [JC]
... +1 work with Amy et. al. on proposal
17:00:51 [JC]
... -1 for a counter proposal
17:01:01 [susanisrael]
possible +1, need to read more carefully
17:01:11 [JC]
Peter: Number 11 defintion of user agent from Chris Pedigo
17:01:20 [npdoty]
Zakim, wseltzer has npdoty
17:01:20 [Zakim]
sorry, npdoty, I do not recognize a party named 'wseltzer'
17:01:22 [dan_auerbach]
if we prefer no change, we don't write -1 right ? I think that's where I am
17:01:29 [tlr]
Pedigo on user agent:
17:01:30 [jchester2]
jchester2 has joined #dnt
17:01:41 [jmayer]
dan, -1 = would contribute to a proposal in a different direction.
17:01:42 [tlr]
dan, if you prefer no change, you can just say that later -- not much of a point putting it out now
17:01:59 [dsinger]
ah, we need to improve the section title and do some editorial cleanup
17:02:01 [jmayer]
I'm -1 on this direction for sharing.
17:02:05 [JC]
ChrisPedigo: The defintion meshes what a UA must be included and there are three statemtents that don't make since
17:02:15 [JC]
... I would like to add a separate section for websites
17:02:27 [JC]
Peter: Were there others that made UA defintions?
17:02:37 [amyc]
My apologies to all, I have to drop off, so won't be able to walk through the CP to section 7 on existing privacy controls, but tried to include explanation as part of CP, please feel free to contact me directly with qs
17:02:39 [JC]
... UA compliance is next
17:02:51 [Zakim]
17:03:00 [JC]
Chapell: my proposal was contained in industry proposal so look there
17:03:12 [JC]
... the idea is similar to what I have mentioned for a while
17:03:16 [tlr]
ack thomas
17:03:30 [JC]
... the UA must indicate clearly what it states
17:03:39 [npdoty]
Chapell, is that a change from the editors' draft?
17:03:45 [JC]
Tlr: I'm confused on what is stated
17:03:49 [Zakim]
+ +49.173.259.bbcc
17:03:52 [dsinger]
this document?
17:04:02 [JC]
Dan: I was mentioning disclosure requirements
17:04:26 [JC]
Tlr: can you help me find it?
17:04:28 [rvaneijk]
rvaneijk has joined #dnt
17:04:58 [JC]
Peter: Let's figure out how to work with text that came in before noon
17:05:00 [tlr]
alan's language is supposedly in here:
17:05:07 [JC]
... Justin you have input
17:05:41 [JC]
Justin: If the user uses private mode it is obvious the user does not want to be tracked
17:05:51 [npdoty]
is there any marking in the PDF that notes what the edits are?
17:06:02 [JC]
... clear and prominent language can be controversial, but we need to be consistent
17:06:13 [Zakim]
17:06:22 [JC]
... the June draft is prescriptive on UA side but not the user side
17:06:27 [tlr]
+1 to Nick -- a version that has changes tracked would be very useful.
17:06:34 [JC]
... I suggest what we have had in the TPE for a while
17:06:42 [dsinger]
+1 to Justin; we previously agreed to rough parity
17:06:43 [Zakim]
17:06:52 [wseltzer]
[pdf link: ]
17:06:57 [JC]
Peter: Amy you have input on privacy controls
17:07:05 [JC]
Amyc is there
17:07:28 [rigo]
I think the UA side and the UGE must be the same, as they both claim to collect consent
17:07:42 [johnsimpson]
17:07:47 [rigo]
17:08:12 [npdoty]
Chapell, could you summarize the changes for us on UA Compliance that are represented in this PDF? (I can't see offhand what is different from the editors' draft)
17:08:13 [tlr]
Amy's proposal on existing privacy controls:
17:08:58 [wseltzer]
JC: concern, how do we reconcile opt-out and DNT; multiple devices, user-granted exceptions depend on timing
17:09:12 [wseltzer]
... how do we provide something that's not confusing users or providers
17:09:15 [Chapell]
npdoty, will do on list later
17:09:18 [wseltzer]
... slight changes to the tables
17:09:33 [JC]
Peter: jamayer you have input
17:09:35 [tlr]
Jonathan on user agent:
17:09:50 [JC]
Jmayer: Yes, I provided language on the standard language to use
17:10:05 [Chapell]
dsinger and justin - i agree re: parity on disclosure standards for UA and UGE
17:10:10 [JC]
Peter: on user agent compliance there are three things
17:10:26 [JC]
... +1 to work with Chapell and advertisers approach
17:10:28 [Chapell]
... however, the language in the current draft was unclear, IMHO
17:10:43 [johnsimpson]
17:10:44 [JC]
... +2 if you want to work with Justin on TPE direction
17:10:53 [ninjamarnau]
17:10:57 [johnsimpson]
17:11:01 [dsinger]
17:11:02 [johnsimpson]
17:11:05 [Aleecia]
17:11:12 [Zakim]
17:11:16 [JC]
... +3 if you want to work with Amy and JC on tables to reconcile DNT vs. other standards
17:11:18 [Aleecia]
17:11:22 [dan_auerbach]
+4 (sort of) I proposed my own language
17:11:32 [JC]
.... +4 to work with Jonathan
17:11:37 [jmayer]
17:11:54 [JC]
... Let's go to security and fraud
17:11:56 [npdoty]
work with Justin on TPE direction for UA compliance: johnsimpson ninjamarnau dsinger Aleecia jmayer
17:12:26 [sidstamm]
npdoty, +2 add me to the list
17:12:27 [tlr]
ack thomas
17:12:30 [JC]
... can someone explain Chris M proposal?
17:12:40 [npdoty]
work with Justin on TPE direction for UA compliance: johnsimpson ninjamarnau dsinger Aleecia jmayer sidstamm
17:12:49 [JC]
Tlr: can someone point to the draft?
17:12:54 [tlr]
17:12:57 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
17:12:57 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
17:12:59 [JC]
Johnsimpson: It should be on the Wiki
17:13:19 [JC]
Peter: I think there was substantial writing on the list John can you exaplain your approach
17:13:45 [JC]
Johnsimpson: I looked at thread and liked proposal, but was concerned about the lack of graduated response
17:13:56 [dan_auerbach]
I suggested text on security and fraud too, along with all permitted uses
17:13:59 [JC]
... I wanted to make sure it got it, supporting Roy's input
17:14:13 [WileyS]
Note - as discussed in Sunnyvale, a graduated response is not a workable solution and would lead to notfifying attackers that you suspect them.
17:14:17 [JC]
Peter: I haven't reviewed this, was there language Roy?
17:14:29 [jmayer_]
jmayer_ has joined #dnt
17:14:32 [JC]
Johnsimpson: it was the original language
17:14:51 [JC]
Roy: There are changes to June draft and addtion of graduated response
17:14:55 [npdoty]
dan_auerbach, Lee had proposed text from the earlier EFF proposal, that also referenced a concept of graduated response, do you think those could be combined?
17:14:58 [jmayer_]
There's been language on graduated response for over a year.
17:15:06 [JC]
Peter: one subissue is around graduated response, is there new language
17:15:24 [JC]
Johnsimpson: that original language came from April public draft
17:15:27 [npdoty]
I believe the original definition of graduated response came from Ian Fette, several months ago
17:15:32 [dan_auerbach]
npdoty, yes, we can work on combining those
17:15:34 [JC]
... I believe Ian submitted it
17:15:42 [JC]
... it all mad sense to me
17:15:57 [JC]
Peter: There is a proposal from Chris on this
17:16:08 [JC]
... +1 to work with Chris on this
17:16:26 [JC]
... +2 to work on graduated response with Roy or Ian's language as base
17:16:28 [johnsimpson]
17:16:29 [Zakim]
17:16:40 [WileyS]
-1 (remove graduated response)
17:16:42 [fielding]
17:16:44 [jmayer_]
17:16:50 [JC]
... beyond that the issues are explained well in language
17:16:58 [dsinger]
17:17:02 [JC]
... -2 is you are against graduated response
17:17:04 [Zakim]
17:17:05 [JC]
17:17:06 [Zakim]
- +1.650.787.bbaa
17:17:06 [jchester2]
17:17:12 [hefferjr]
17:17:19 [efelten]
Still confused if these polls are asking for volunteers for drafting, or asking for positions on issues.
17:17:20 [dan_auerbach_]
dan_auerbach_ has joined #dnt
17:17:21 [WileyS]
17:17:26 [dan_auerbach_]
17:17:27 [dan_auerbach_]
17:17:34 [JC]
Peter: Jonathat you have other issues to raise?
17:17:42 [jchester2]
I agree with Ed, the process is still confusing.
17:17:48 [JC]
Jmayer: Yes, text around partial compliance
17:17:53 [johnsimpson]
Ed Felten: I agree. I have no idea what we are doing.
17:18:05 [npdoty]
work with John/Roy: dan_auerbach jmayer jchester2 dsinger; counter: WileyS JC hefferjr
17:18:12 [JC]
... if a website once to honor do not track it must say so
17:18:17 [dsinger]
zakim, who is making noise?
17:18:22 [WileyS]
Audio is going in and out on Jonathan - could everyone other than Jonathan hit mute?
17:18:27 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +49.173.259.bbcc (14%), johnsimpson (9%)
17:18:36 [JC]
... [breaking up for me]
17:18:37 [ninjamarnau]
when in doubt, it is always volunteering
17:18:44 [npdoty]
efelten, the polls are intended to volunteer working on drafting (friendly amendments or counter proposals), not support
17:18:46 [tlr]
partial compliance:
17:18:48 [npdoty]
Zakim, mute bbcc
17:18:48 [Zakim]
+49.173.259.bbcc should now be muted
17:18:52 [JC]
... discussion around personalization, collecting user's browsing history
17:19:01 [efelten]
Confusion is because they're phrased as calls for positions. "If you're opposed …"
17:19:08 [JC]
... I would be in favor of getting rid of personalization
17:19:16 [tlr]
Mayer on personalization:
17:19:21 [jchester2]
Nick--But in essence, agreeing to help write is expressing support. Which is what's happening in my view.
17:19:22 [Marc]
Marc has joined #dnt
17:19:22 [WileyS]
+1 to Jonathan on this one
17:19:35 [tlr]
Mayer on unknowing collection:
17:19:49 [Ari]
Ari has joined #dnt
17:20:00 [JC]
... there was an attempt to clarify June text to indicate when a website is in violation or what to do when determined in violation
17:20:05 [npdoty]
jchester2, yes, but there might be lots of things you support that you aren't going to help write, since, for example, we all have limited time
17:20:06 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.835.bbdd
17:20:11 [tlr]
jchester, there's a piece of support / opposition implied in whether you're volunteering to help with a proposal or write a counterproposal
17:20:13 [JC]
... it could post it to website, but must tell someone
17:20:21 [Zakim]
- +1.212.844.aapp
17:20:28 [Marc]
That's Marc
17:20:29 [JC]
Peter: +1 if you want to work with Jonathan on any of the issues
17:20:35 [JC]
... clarify area with +1
17:20:35 [jchester2]
17:20:39 [WileyS]
+1 to remove Personalization language
17:20:39 [Marc]
212 835 - marc
17:20:40 [npdoty]
Zakim, bbdd is Marc
17:20:40 [Zakim]
+Marc; got it
17:20:43 [JC]
... Aleecia is next
17:20:48 [Aleecia]
Zakim, I mute me
17:20:48 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'I mute me', Aleecia
17:20:49 [tlr]
but -- the point really is to organize the work
17:20:50 [npdoty]
ack Aleecia
17:21:19 [JC]
Aleecia: I felt that there were a number of issues that were dropped and were not in consensus.
17:21:28 [Zakim]
17:21:36 [JC]
... the June draft is a wonderful addtion, but should not be a replacement
17:22:01 [JC]
... the June draft is very readable, but there are a number of issues that have been dropped on the florr.
17:22:08 [jchester2]
I think this is very important, coming from the former co-chair.
17:22:09 [JC]
... I have heard that from others
17:22:17 [JC]
Peter: which draft
17:22:27 [JC]
Aleecia: date is in email and I don't remember
17:22:47 [JC]
Peter: We are at 122 and we need to extend our time
17:22:56 [npdoty]
the last public working draft of the Compliance doc is April 30th:
17:23:05 [dan_auerbach_]
apologies, I have to drop off
17:23:11 [JC]
... for audience measurement is cathy there?
17:23:20 [Zakim]
17:23:21 [npdoty]
(Aleecia's email includes the pointer to the latest draft, which currently redirects to April 30th)
17:23:27 [JC]
Could someone send his name
17:23:31 [tlr]
ESOMAR proposal:
17:24:12 [JC]
Name: what we have done is tightened up on the defintion of the data which is held and that profiles cannot be created or used for other purposes
17:24:39 [JC]
... we want to limit this purpose as far as we can to prevent AM data from being used for anything but AM
17:24:52 [Aleecia]
To be very, very clear: the coincidence that I once was a co-chair is not relevant. I am just a simple villager. That said, I think my point still stands.
17:25:03 [JC]
Peter: To clarify changes, this data is used to callibrate, validate panel data
17:25:06 [Aleecia]
Thanks, nick
17:25:19 [JC]
... why was validate or calcualte through added
17:25:49 [JC]
Name: Essentially you start with a panel of people and use count to reflect what is happening in the real world, callibration
17:26:00 [npdoty]
17:26:16 [JC]
... you need to have some idea of who is in panel to know who has seen content
17:26:31 [npdoty]
Adam_Phillips, calling in from ESOMAR, Kathy Joe is off
17:26:34 [Zakim]
17:26:44 [JC]
... so if 50% out of 1000 have seen content then there are 500 without knowing who they are
17:26:46 [moneill2]
simpler just have dnt:0 for the panel
17:27:08 [jchester2]
This needs further review. Because it appears new data sets are implicated
17:27:17 [JC]
... we are coming up with a set of numbers that in the end will not be based on the actual numbers in panel but projected on the group
17:27:22 [susanisrael]
Adam and Richard: would it be accurate to say that what is intended is that you extrapolate from the panel and apply the insights to the general data?
17:27:30 [jmayer_]
Why are consent and de-identified data not sufficient here?
17:27:33 [JC]
Peter: how small can the number in the categories be?
17:27:57 [Richard_comScore]
Susan, you are correct
17:27:57 [npdoty]
moneill2, I think the proposed permitted use is about collecting data from non-panel members
17:28:06 [JC]
Adam_Phillips: Let suppose you have a group of people who live in the Chicago area that are female and shop at Neiman Marcus
17:28:14 [npdoty]
moneill2, in order to calibrate a panel with a larger statistical sample
17:28:19 [JC]
... maybe 5% of people saw the ad.
17:28:39 [moneill2]
yes I know, thats why I dont agreethis should be a permitted use
17:28:39 [JC]
... we don't know who they are. we would have to go on the street to ask people.
17:28:43 [jchester2]
But you create personnas that in essence is the same.
17:28:43 [efelten]
If you can't link the data to an individual, then your data in unsinkable / de-identified.
17:28:52 [efelten]
17:28:57 [tlr]
ack rigo
17:28:59 [JC]
... there should not be a concern to single out individuals unless that have agreed so
17:29:00 [tlr]
ack thomas
17:29:08 [JC]
Peter: Rigo do you have input?
17:29:27 [JC]
Adam_Phillips: We have not had time to connec with Rigo
17:29:45 [johnsimpson]
17:29:48 [JC]
Tlr: the buckets used in this contact should be larger than 800, based on Rigo's email
17:29:58 [JC]
... small addtion to Cathy's note
17:30:08 [jchester2]
17:30:14 [tlr]
17:30:15 [jchester2]
unmute me
17:30:24 [jchester2]
zakim, unmute me
17:30:24 [Zakim]
jchester2 should no longer be muted
17:30:29 [JC]
Adam_Phillips: I don't see what that limit does. Even if there were only 800 people you still wouldn't know who they are
17:30:36 [schunter]
Zakim, mute me
17:30:36 [Zakim]
schunter? should now be muted
17:30:49 [JC]
Tlr: Rigo is willing to work with you to refine the text. You two should chat about this
17:31:04 [johnsimpson]
17:31:04 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
17:31:05 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
17:31:14 [JC]
Adam_Philllips: I am happy to talk to talk to Rigo, but want to maintain our position
17:31:26 [JC]
New scribe?
17:31:32 [susanisrael]
I was supposed to help facilitate discussion so I can do that.
17:31:40 [susanisrael]
17:31:50 [JC]
Peter: +1 to work with to work with Cathy
17:32:04 [johnsimpson]
not a permitted use
17:32:11 [moneill2]
should not be a permitted use
17:32:11 [JC]
... those against this as permitted use will be heard
17:32:12 [jchester2]
let people express if they don't want to see a permitted use
17:32:16 [jchester2]
zakim, mute me
17:32:16 [Zakim]
jchester2 should now be muted
17:32:18 [JC]
... Rigo has concerns
17:32:25 [tlr]
john, jeff -- the place to express that will be a "no change" proposal
17:32:44 [hwest]
Yep, can take over here
17:32:55 [tlr]
ack thomas
17:33:01 [WileyS]
Rob V.
17:33:02 [ninjamarnau]
don't want to see a permitted use
17:33:04 [fielding]
Thomas Schauf
17:33:12 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
17:33:12 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
17:33:14 [johnsimpson]
17:33:16 [WileyS]
And then text from industry groups
17:33:19 [npdoty]
+1 for working with ESOMAR on friendly amendments; -1 on different approach to audience measurement permitted use
17:33:20 [npdoty]
working with ESOMAR on friendly amendments: susanisrael; different approach to audience measurement permitted use: rigo
17:33:24 [hwest]
Peter Swire: Language from Dan Aurbach, Roy, Rob V, Shane next.
17:33:25 [tlr]
Scribe: hwest
17:33:26 [johnsimpson]
17:33:28 [npdoty]
scribenick: hwest
17:33:40 [WileyS]
17:33:43 [johnsimpson]
cannot hear
17:33:48 [hwest]
Peter Swire: We lost Dan, I realize we went over scheduled time
17:34:02 [Zakim]
- +1.650.365.aauu
17:34:03 [tlr]
ack thomas
17:34:13 [hwest]
... Summarizing, had language similar to two stage language that we had previously, added in non-norm text.
17:34:16 [Zakim]
17:34:19 [jchester2]
17:34:32 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
17:34:32 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
17:34:32 [hwest]
... Rob, can you update?
17:35:23 [hwest]
robv: When do you consider data to be de-ident? What is missing is the actual answers, in my view, you include knowledge of the hashing. Because if de-ident is the end state and outside of DNT, need [lost this part]
17:35:50 [hwest]
... Should include that data quality is no longer linkable. Stage approach. Tried to identify some arguments that a three-stage approach makes more sense.
17:36:02 [kulick]
hard to understand the speaker
17:36:09 [npdoty]
people who don't want a permitted use on audience measurement: johnsimpson moneill2 jchester2? ninjamarnau -- we should talk offline about whether your preferences are represented in an alternate proposal or whether we need a "silence" proposal, etc.
17:36:14 [hwest]
.... Shane and I seem to share some views on that. Three state would allow for discussion on those states.
17:36:14 [tlr]
I believe this to be Rob's proposal:
17:36:15 [kulick]
17:36:21 [Zakim]
17:36:21 [dsinger]
my de-id emails: and
17:36:29 [rvaneijk]
lost phone conn
17:36:29 [hwest]
Peter: From before, language from David Singer and [who]
17:36:47 [tlr]
Auerbach's language:
17:36:51 [hwest]
dsinger: Felt that the definition lacked strength in "reasonable level of justified confidence", but I think it was verbal in Sunnyvale
17:37:00 [WileyS]
David - I like the current language - what more are you looking for here?
17:37:09 [hwest]
.... hold data not to identiify user or device, etc
17:37:17 [Zakim]
17:37:41 [fielding]
another version of de-identified was posted after the deadline:
17:37:45 [hwest]
... If de-ident, then should be in a state that we're no longer worried about. Propose the second statement.
17:37:59 [WileyS]
3 States: raw -> deidentified but linkable -> deidentified and unlinkable
17:38:08 [hwest]
Roy: Proposal to define deident in terms of the data and the process of deident, tried to make it as short as possible.
17:38:13 [dsinger]
I also agree with Roy: the definition should be results-based, not process-based
17:38:14 [Zakim]
17:38:21 [WileyS]
Only in the final state is data finally out of scope
17:38:24 [hwest]
Peter: Some folks have argued for process. Why better to do it with state of the data?
17:38:43 [Zakim]
17:38:56 [hwest]
Roy: The way the term is used in the draft is talking about the state of data. Doesn't make sense to define as a process when the goal is to reach a certain state.
17:39:16 [npdoty]
both the current text and Dan A's proposal included the "reasonable level of justified confidence" -- does anyone from EFF want to argue for the existing level of reasonableness?
17:39:31 [dsinger]
I am somewhat concerned that my (early) CP on raw data (it should be a permitted use) seems to have dropped away?
17:39:54 [fielding]
BTW, I would also be fine with removing the definition and simply replacing its use with specific text applicable to that section.
17:39:57 [hwest]
Shane: We can go through a PDF sent out earlier, five slides, to help guide people through the conversation and giv context on this approach. Rob and I reached consensus on terms.
17:40:11 [tlr]
dsinger, ooops.
17:40:12 [hwest]
... Add a few definitions and tie specific Permitted Uses to specific data states
17:40:15 [hwest]
... Can run folks through that.
17:40:26 [hwest]
Peter: Is the doc in IRC?
17:40:41 [npdoty]
17:40:47 [npdoty]
17:40:52 [johnsimpson]
didn't hit list.
17:40:56 [hwest]
Shane: I sent it to the mailing list, it at 9:04am PT, Subjec tis W3C De-ID presentation
17:41:15 [fielding]
it did, just buried in another thread instead of properly subject
17:41:20 [tlr]
ack thomas
17:41:30 [hwest]
... Rob and I submitted text to the public mailing list earlier in the week, then industry draft came through and supports some of this language, can be harmonized.
17:41:43 [hwest]
... This is to give more context and explain the thought process here.
17:42:05 [hwest]
Shane: To give illustration.
17:42:20 [hwest]
Peter: Do you have a proposal that this would be non-norm example that would somehow show what the three stage means?
17:42:26 [rvaneijk]
the concepts are the same, we need further discussion on permitted uses, and whether to use the word de-identified
17:42:32 [hwest]
... we can reduce this to language.
17:42:37 [tlr]
ack thomas
17:42:44 [efelten]
The prepared presentation does not appear to discuss the proposed standards text.
17:42:58 [hwest]
Shane: This is one possible implementation within the construct. Helps folks understand the concepts.
17:43:15 [jchester2]
We need to discuss the slides
17:43:37 [hwest]
tlr: Fundamental concept discussed in Sunnyvale, suggest that we focus on the things that are new since Sunnyvale and on very concrete proposals for tri-state environment. Also, can you explain how this relates to the text proposal?
17:43:46 [fielding]
s/it did, just/Shane's presentation pdf made it to the list, but/
17:44:04 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
17:44:04 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
17:44:09 [hwest]
Peter: Go ahead to the PUs and the tri-state.
17:44:11 [dsinger]
This seems like a major change of direction; even the definitions are very different. For example, 'Tracking' seems similar to the 'do not cross-site track' that I derived from Roy's suggestion, and that was firmly rejected by the group.
17:44:15 [rvaneijk]
17:44:18 [efelten]
Would like to hear an explanation of the proposed text.
17:44:42 [fielding]
dsinger, no it was not firmly rejected by the group
17:44:57 [hwest]
Shane: So PUs in the tri-state. This is the conceptual framework of why you have three, WG has struggled with certain PUs. Holding in the raw state causes discomfort. This creates an additional state that is more protective than raw.
17:45:01 [rvaneijk]
17:45:01 [fielding]
… it has never even been discussed by the group
17:45:02 [npdoty]
[slide 5 of 7, on permitted uses in the tri-state]
17:45:16 [hwest]
... So a middle state. In the raw/psuedonymous data, there would only be three and a half PUs allowed.
17:45:36 [hwest]
... Raw data, where an operational ID is necessary. Reality is we need operational ID for some things.
17:46:11 [hwest]
... Today's operational reality needs security/fraud, frequency capping, [which?], and some financial and audit - only where required for the last one.
17:46:49 [hwest]
... Goal here within raw is shorter retention timeframes where possible, these PUs are there, but shouldn't be there for very long. I'm against arbitrary time frame, so comparatively to other states, should be shorter.
17:46:54 [Zakim]
17:46:56 [Zakim]
17:46:59 [Zakim]
- +49.173.259.bbcc
17:47:30 [hwest]
... New middle state. Between raw and unlinked. Individual has been deident internally, but still linkable across device but not linkable to device in the real world. One approach is a hash and administrative controls.
17:47:50 [hwest]
.... Should not be able to use it for production in any way, should not alter user experience.
17:47:51 [efelten]
This concept of "not altering experience" is not in the proposed text.
17:47:51 [npdoty]
I understand the slides to be suggesting that DNT:1 should allow interest-based advertising based on browsing activity, but only after the browsing activity has been aggregated enough that it doesn't identify the visited sites
17:48:07 [robsherman]
robsherman has joined #dnt
17:48:08 [dsinger]
to fielding: I proposed a change to 'do not cross-site track', and what that meant, and at best, the group decided not to follow that direction, and stay with the 1st/3rd/do-not-track model
17:48:10 [hwest]
... Gets us to the rest of financial audits, and PUs like product improvement and market research.
17:48:35 [hwest]
... You're not done, you're still within the scope of DNT. ONly once you unlink the data do you move out of the scope of DNT. Many different ways to do that.
17:48:58 [jchester2]
Shane: If state 2, are you saying that the info in any way cannot be used to subsequently target the user of someone who shares the qualities of the user?
17:49:00 [hwest]
... Data should be able to be shared without risk of reident in the data set.
17:49:13 [justin]
jchester2, yes, that's the goal
17:49:18 [WileyS]
Jeff - yes
17:49:35 [jchester2]
Thanks. Thats a goal--but also a requirement?
17:49:39 [hwest]
Peter: I encourage folks to read the slides. Are there other provisions in the recent doc to highlight?
17:49:46 [justin]
jchester2, yes.
17:49:58 [hwest]
Shane: Delinked/deidentified, and added language around PUs being pushed into using only deid data where possible.
17:50:12 [jmayer_]
17:50:15 [jmayer_]
17:50:15 [jchester2]
We need to discuss the product improvement paradigm in the mid-state
17:50:17 [hwest]
... I think those were the core edits to this proposal around deident as a midstate.
17:50:38 [justin]
jchester2, but data can still be stored in a potentially reversible form, though operational controls are supposed to prevent that. It's designed to allow longitudinal reearch to be used in aggregate.
17:50:46 [hwest]
Shane: There are other changes throughout, redline to help group see the changes.
17:51:06 [efelten]
Jeff, product improvement doesn't seem to appear elsewhere in the document, so that seems like an inconsistency.
17:51:17 [hwest]
Peter: We've tried to highlight change proposals today. Are there other change proposals that we have not addressed?
17:51:20 [dsinger]
yes, mine on raw data
17:51:26 [npdoty]
q+ dsinger
17:51:32 [npdoty]
ack dsinger
17:51:33 [efelten]
i.e., there isn't a product improvement permitted use in the document.
17:51:33 [tlr]
ack dsinger
17:51:35 [johnsimpson]
seem to be inconsistencies between slides and the new industry document!
17:51:53 [tlr]
17:52:04 [hwest]
dsinger: The June draft, retaining raw data should be a PU for the purpose of working it into data that you can retain for some reason.
17:52:04 [dsinger]
17:52:13 [hwest]
Peter: Missed that one.
17:52:15 [jchester2]
Slide 6 is very important, given the growing use of invisible scoring on users. this requires a full discussion.
17:52:32 [hwest]
dsinger: Raw data is tracking data, certainly. By putting in a PU, constrained for retention and use.
17:52:36 [Brooks]
I proposed a change to Section 1 - scope
17:52:46 [justin]
17:52:48 [justin]
17:52:48 [tlr]
q+ brooks
17:52:52 [hwest]
Peter: +1 means you want to work with DavidSinger on this
17:53:03 [hwest]
... -1 means a different approach is better for this kind of raw data
17:53:21 [tlr]
Brooks Dobbs:
17:53:25 [hwest]
... Any other change proposals?
17:53:26 [moneill2]
17:53:53 [npdoty]
work with dsinger on raw: justin; counter:
17:53:53 [hwest]
Brooks: Changed scope, first sentence currently is not consistent with what we actually do in the document.
17:53:54 [tlr]
ack brooks
17:54:00 [peterswire]
moneil is next
17:54:29 [justin]
But OOBC . . .
17:54:37 [hwest]
... [reads existing language] - not consistent with the spec. We've gone out of our way in the UA requirements to not have UGEs or DNT0 be a compulsory requirement. Either change requrements or chang ethe scope.
17:54:52 [Chapell]
17:54:56 [Zakim]
+ +1.312.923.bbee
17:55:01 [Marc]
17:55:03 [dwainberg]
17:55:04 [mecallahan]
bbee mecallahan
17:55:07 [dsinger]
17:55:09 [tlr]
ack moneil
17:55:10 [hwest]
Peter: +1 to work with Brooks on this change of scope language, -1 if substantively different approach
17:55:16 [robsherman]
17:55:18 [Chapell]
17:55:19 [johnsimpson]
17:55:28 [dsinger]
zakim, bbee is mecallahan
17:55:28 [Zakim]
+mecallahan; got it
17:55:29 [fielding]
dsinger, what you recall is the rejection of a specific proposal that limited first-party tracking as well as third-party tracking … the definition I provided last night is significantly different
17:55:57 [hwest]
moneill2: Two proposals, compliance spec changes on Thursday, some of the changes have been covered by others. Main thing is the deident issue, put in some persistent identifier. Maybe not unique, maybe just unique enough.
17:56:06 [hwest]
... Tied to the idea that there's a duration on how long the identifier lasts
17:56:16 [tlr]
I believe Mike is talking about this one:$163e4950$42badbf0$
17:56:21 [hwest]
... Yellow tate for different PUs, different durations.
17:56:28 [npdoty]
work with brooks on change of scope: Chapell, marc, dwainberg, dsinger, robsherman
17:56:43 [hwest]
Peter: Overlaps with rvaneijk and others?
17:56:47 [hwest]
moneill2: Yes, some overlap.
17:57:03 [WileyS]
Peter and W3C Staff: Many people are out next week on vacation - is there a call next week?
17:57:06 [Zakim]
17:57:12 [rvaneijk]
17:57:15 [hwest]
... I will have a discussion, OOBC non-norm description of consent with cookies. Link from TPC to mention it.
17:57:33 [hwest]
Peter: We have three minutes. Will switch to talking about next steps.
17:57:50 [Chapell]
Re: my proposal for User Agent compliance. we did not get to that
17:57:54 [jmayer_]
Could I ask a clarifying question about Shane's proposal?
17:58:09 [Chapell]
... so I would refer the WG to the discussion between myself and Alex Fowler on the list
17:58:17 [hwest]
... Lots of folks who have volunteered to work on language. Wiki will stay updated (thanks Nick!) and can help you find each other and work with each other. Over next day, will get info out on that.
17:58:21 [Zakim]
- +1.215.480.aagg
17:58:44 [WileyS]
Jonathan - feel free to ask on the public list. I'm dropping in 2 mins so probably won't be able to reply here.
17:58:52 [hwest]
... Also working on schedule for consideration on the merits of proposals. Need to get that out to you in the next day or so. Action will happen on the lists, since we're running out of calls. Will be clear about proposals.
17:58:54 [Chapell]
.... I'm hopeful that it won't be controversial for reasons I've laid out on the list
17:59:02 [jchester2]
We need a seperate discussion on Shane's proposal, inc on permitted uses. This deserves a session.
17:59:06 [npdoty]
jmayer, I think we're running out of time, can you ask on the mailing list?
17:59:11 [WileyS]
Peter and W3C Staff: Many people are out next week on vacation - is there a call next week?
17:59:27 [susanisrael]
Might there be extra calls?
17:59:31 [rvaneijk]
shane, you will need to drup the aggregated scoring :) !
17:59:38 [rvaneijk]
17:59:39 [hwest]
.... Will use dates and if necessary go to a chairs' decision. There will continue to be a process, spend more time on most important issues, but will discuss all of them.
17:59:47 [Marc]
To follow up on Shane's comment, many many people are out next week.
17:59:51 [Zakim]
17:59:52 [tlr]
ack thomas
17:59:56 [WileyS]
Rob - disagree - as that is de-linked from history so should be permitted.
17:59:57 [Zakim]
17:59:58 [hwest]
... It's 2pm, I'm sure we could have lots of comments. Thank you for your hard work, will be working hard on our end.
17:59:58 [Zakim]
17:59:58 [Zakim]
- +1.646.827.aayy
18:00:00 [Zakim]
18:00:00 [Zakim]
18:00:01 [Zakim]
18:00:02 [Zakim]
- +1.202.331.bbbb
18:00:03 [dsinger]
18:00:03 [Zakim]
18:00:03 [Zakim]
18:00:03 [Zakim]
18:00:04 [Zakim]
18:00:04 [Zakim]
18:00:04 [Zakim]
18:00:04 [Zakim]
18:00:04 [Zakim]
18:00:05 [Zakim]
18:00:07 [Zakim]
18:00:11 [peterswire]
peterswire has left #dnt
18:00:12 [Zakim]
18:00:12 [hwest]
18:00:13 [Zakim]
18:00:13 [Zakim]
18:00:15 [Zakim]
18:00:15 [Zakim]
18:00:16 [Zakim]
18:00:17 [Zakim]
18:00:17 [Zakim]
18:00:18 [Zakim]
- +1.408.836.aall
18:00:19 [Zakim]
18:00:20 [Zakim]
18:00:21 [Zakim]
- +1.323.253.aakk
18:00:27 [Zakim]
18:00:31 [Zakim]
18:00:32 [Zakim]
18:00:32 [Zakim]
18:00:34 [Zakim]
18:00:36 [Zakim]
18:00:38 [Zakim]
18:00:39 [Zakim]
18:00:47 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has left #dnt
18:00:47 [Zakim]
18:00:48 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
18:00:48 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.609.258.aaaa, Thomas, RichardWeaver, efelten, +1.646.654.aabb, npdoty, eberkower, +1.202.973.aacc, +1.202.478.aadd, Brooks, rachel_n_thomas, +1.202.587.aaee,
18:00:48 [Zakim]
... yianni, +49.431.98.aaff, +1.215.480.aagg, ninjamarnau, +1.202.326.aahh, +1.917.934.aaii, paulohm, +1.202.331.aajj, +1.323.253.aakk, paul_glist?, [Microsoft], hefferjr,
18:00:49 [Zakim]
... +1.408.836.aall, jchester2, WileyS, JeffWilson, +31.65.141.aamm, rvaneijk, vinay, dsinger, hwest, +1.650.391.aann, +1.202.629.aaoo, robsherman, +1.212.844.aapp, susanisrael,
18:00:49 [Zakim]
... johnsimpson, [CDT], Joanne, schunter?, +1.301.365.aaqq, +1.347.272.aarr, [FTC], +1.647.274.aass, Chris_Pedigo, +1.202.347.aatt, +1.650.365.aauu, peterswire, +49.211.600.4.aavv,
18:00:54 [Zakim]
... jackhobaugh, +1.646.666.aaww, +1.202.787.aaxx, chapell, jay_jin, Dan_Auerbach, dstark, +1.646.827.aayy, BerinSzoka, Fielding, Jonathan_Mayer, moneill2, BillScannell, Aleecia,
18:00:54 [Zakim]
... sidstamm, +1.650.595.aazz, Rigo, BillScannell?, +1.650.787.bbaa, +1.202.331.bbbb, +49.173.259.bbcc, +1.202.835.bbdd, Marc, +1.312.923.bbee, mecallahan
18:06:10 [fielding]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
18:06:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate fielding
18:09:18 [npdoty]
rrsagent, bye
18:09:18 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items