15:52:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:52:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/09/25-dnt-irc
15:52:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:52:57 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
15:52:57 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:52:58 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:52:58 <trackbot> Date: 25 September 2013
15:53:02 <npdoty> Zakim, this will be TRACK
15:53:03 <Zakim> ok, npdoty; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
15:53:10 <npdoty> chair: schunter
15:54:10 <npdoty> npdoty has changed the topic to: agenda for September 25: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0123.html
15:55:16 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:55:24 <Zakim> + +49.172.147.aaaa
15:55:30 <schunter> Zakim, aaaa is schunter
15:55:30 <Zakim> +schunter; got it
15:55:33 <lsheena> lsheena has joined #dnt
15:55:37 <JackHobaugh> JackHobaugh has joined #dnt
15:55:45 <Zakim> +Wendy
15:56:13 <Zakim> + +1.646.654.aabb
15:56:33 <ninjamarnau> ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
15:56:41 <Zakim> +Jeff
15:56:44 <lsheena> Zakim, lsheena is Lia
15:56:44 <Zakim> sorry, lsheena, I do not recognize a party named 'lsheena'
15:57:07 <Zakim> + +43.198.8aacc
15:57:12 <Zakim> +npdoty
15:57:13 <lsheena> Zakim, lsheena is aabb
15:57:14 <Zakim> sorry, lsheena, I do not recognize a party named 'lsheena'
15:57:16 <Zakim> + +1.646.827.aadd
15:57:22 <wseltzer> zakim, aabb is lsheena
15:57:22 <Zakim> +lsheena; got it
15:57:25 <ninjamarnau> zakim, aacc is ninjamarnau
15:57:25 <Zakim> +ninjamarnau; got it
15:57:27 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
15:57:37 <lsheena> thanks
15:57:38 <justin> justin has joined #dnt
15:57:46 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
15:57:46 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
15:57:53 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:57:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see schunter, Wendy, lsheena, Jeff, ninjamarnau, npdoty (muted), +1.646.827.aadd
15:57:59 <Zakim> + +1.202.347.aaee
15:58:04 <dwainberg> zakim, aadd is dwainberg
15:58:04 <Zakim> +dwainberg; got it
15:58:06 <npdoty> ack npdoty
15:58:11 <npdoty> zakim, mute e
15:58:11 <Zakim> sorry, npdoty, I do not know which phone connection belongs to e
15:58:11 <JackHobaugh> Zakim, aaee is me
15:58:12 <Zakim> +JackHobaugh; got it
15:58:14 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
15:58:14 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
15:58:28 <Joanne> Joanne has joined #DNT
15:58:49 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
15:59:05 <paulohm> paulohm has joined #dnt
15:59:10 <jchester2> jchester2 has joined #dnt
15:59:21 <Zakim> +BerinSzoka
15:59:32 <Zakim> +??P32
15:59:38 <hwest> hwest has joined #dnt
15:59:43 <justin> zakim, p32 is me
15:59:43 <Zakim> sorry, justin, I do not recognize a party named 'p32'
15:59:51 <npdoty> Zakim, ??p32 is justin
15:59:51 <Zakim> +justin; got it
16:00:11 <jchester2> Is this the DAA's DNT call or WC3's.  I am getting lost with all the dueling DNT's going on!
16:00:19 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
16:00:22 <Zakim> + +1.303.492.aaff
16:00:25 <Zakim> + +1.202.346.aagg
16:00:27 <Zakim> + +1.678.492.aahh
16:00:30 <Zakim> + +1.916.212.aaii
16:00:31 <paulohm> zakim, aaff is me
16:00:32 <Zakim> +paulohm; got it
16:00:33 <vinay> vinay has joined #dnt
16:00:34 <Zakim> + +1.215.480.aajj
16:00:38 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
16:00:39 <npdoty> ack npdoty
16:00:41 <Zakim> +[Adobe]
16:00:47 <kj_> kj_ has joined #dnt
16:00:50 <mecallahan> mecallahan has joined #dnt
16:00:54 <Joanne> Zakim, aaii is Joanne
16:00:54 <Zakim> +Joanne; got it
16:01:03 <Brooks> 678 is Brooks
16:01:03 <npdoty> Zakim, aahh is Brooks
16:01:03 <Zakim> +Brooks; got it
16:01:04 <vinay> zakim, [Adobe] is vinay
16:01:04 <Zakim> +vinay; got it
16:01:05 <Richard_comScore> Richard_comScore has joined #dnt
16:01:06 <hwest> Zakim, aagg is hwest
16:01:06 <Zakim> +hwest; got it
16:01:08 <Zakim> +Fielding
16:01:10 <Zakim> +dsinger
16:01:14 <Zakim> + +1.202.639.aakk
16:01:18 <Zakim> +jchester2
16:01:20 <npdoty> Zakim, aajj may be RobMichael
16:01:20 <Zakim> +RobMichael?; got it
16:01:22 <Ari> Ari has joined #dnt
16:01:24 <Zakim> +hefferjr
16:01:25 <jchester2> Zakim, mute me
16:01:25 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
16:01:27 <Zakim> + +1.650.595.aall
16:01:37 <Zakim> + +1.202.587.aamm
16:01:49 <npdoty> Zakim, akk is mecallahan
16:01:49 <Zakim> sorry, npdoty, I do not recognize a party named 'akk'
16:01:53 <matt> matt has joined #dnt
16:01:58 <npdoty> Zakim, aakk is mecallahan
16:01:59 <Zakim> +mecallahan; got it
16:02:05 <Zakim> + +1.212.231.aann
16:02:08 <susanisrael> susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:02:14 <WileyS> WileyS has joined #dnt
16:02:16 <Zakim> +SusanIsrael
16:02:28 <FPFJoeN> FPFJoeN has joined #dnt
16:02:49 <wseltzer> zakim, who is here?
16:02:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see schunter, Wendy, lsheena, Jeff, ninjamarnau, npdoty, dwainberg, JackHobaugh, BerinSzoka, justin, paulohm, hwest, Brooks, Joanne, RobMichael?, vinay, Fielding,
16:02:49 <FPFJoeN> 202587 4870 is FPFJOeN
16:02:52 <Zakim> ... dsinger, mecallahan, jchester2 (muted), hefferjr, +1.650.595.aall, +1.202.587.aamm, +1.212.231.aann, SusanIsrael
16:02:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see FPFJoeN, WileyS, susanisrael, matt, Ari, Richard_comScore, mecallahan, kj_, adrianba, vinay, fielding, hwest, jchester2, paulohm, Brooks, Joanne, justin, dwainberg,
16:02:52 <Zakim> ... ninjamarnau, JackHobaugh, lsheena, RRSAgent, Zakim, npdoty, schunter
16:02:56 <Zakim> +RichardWeaver
16:03:01 <Zakim> + +1.510.501.aaoo
16:03:01 <npdoty> Zakim, aamm is FPFJoeN
16:03:01 <Zakim> +FPFJoeN; got it
16:03:01 <matt> 212-231-xxxx is matt haies
16:03:04 <Zakim> +WileyS
16:03:08 <npdoty> Zakim, aann is matt
16:03:08 <Zakim> +matt; got it
16:03:45 <Zakim> -schunter
16:03:54 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #dnt
16:04:03 <npdoty> Zakim, aaoo is LeeTien
16:04:04 <cOlsen> cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:04:04 <Zakim> +LeeTien; got it
16:04:37 <Zakim> +schunter
16:04:42 <npdoty> scribenick: ninjamarnau
16:04:46 <Zakim> +Peder_Magee
16:05:14 <ChrisPedigoOPA> ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:05:19 <Zakim> +Chris_Pedigo
16:05:23 <npdoty> Zakim, drop aall
16:05:23 <Zakim> +1.650.595.aall is being disconnected
16:05:24 <pmagee> pmagee has joined #dnt
16:05:24 <Zakim> - +1.650.595.aall
16:05:31 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
16:05:31 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
16:05:31 <ninjamarnau> schunter: sent agenda few days ago. Any comments?
16:05:37 <npdoty> ack npdoty
16:05:44 <Zakim> +[FTC]
16:05:45 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
16:05:45 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
16:05:46 <wseltzer> [agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0123.html ]
16:06:00 <JC> JC has joined #DNT
16:06:09 <wseltzer> Topic: Fine-tuning the plan
16:06:13 <Zakim> + +1.650.595.aapp
16:06:14 <susanisrael> q+
16:06:22 <dwainberg> q+
16:06:25 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:06:27 <Ari> 650-595 is Ari from Rocket Fuel
16:06:28 <ninjamarnau> ... now fine tuning of the plan. Some members asked for 2 additional weeks for some issues
16:06:33 <npdoty> Zakim, aapp is Ari
16:06:33 <Zakim> +Ari; got it
16:06:42 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
16:06:43 <adrianba> zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
16:06:43 <Zakim> +adrianba; got it
16:06:52 <Zakim> -schunter
16:06:57 <npdoty> ack npdoty
16:07:02 <dsinger> what do you mean by "all the documentation"? is that all the CPs that might be needed
16:07:03 <ninjamarnau> ... The deadline for some very old issues stays the same. October 2nd
16:07:04 <Zakim> -justin
16:07:23 <Zakim> +schunter
16:07:25 <moneill2> moneill2 has joined #dnt
16:07:38 <npdoty> ack susanisrael
16:07:39 <JackHobaugh> Yes, when are counter proposals due?
16:07:43 <ninjamarnau> ndoty: schunter dropped. Who is on the queue
16:07:44 <Zakim> + +44.186.558.aaqq
16:07:55 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:08:11 <jchester2> So would I because much more information is required on some of these issues.
16:08:14 <moneill2> zakim aaqq is me
16:08:15 <ninjamarnau> susanisrael: I'd like to understand what is expected by October 2nd
16:08:16 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
16:08:16 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
16:08:18 <Zakim> + +1.202.478.aarr
16:08:20 <Zakim> - +1.202.478.aarr
16:08:24 <rachel_n_thomas> rachel_n_thomas has joined #dnt
16:08:24 <npdoty> Zakim, aaqq is moneill2
16:08:25 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
16:08:30 <moneill2> zakim, aaqq is me
16:08:30 <Zakim> sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named 'aaqq'
16:08:36 <lsheena> zakim, mute me
16:08:36 <Zakim> lsheena should now be muted
16:08:37 <wseltzer> -> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/How_to Documentation
16:08:43 <dsinger> what do you mean by "documentation is finalized"?
16:08:44 <Zakim> + +1.202.478.aass
16:08:54 <rachel_n_thomas> zakim, aass is rachel_n_thomas
16:08:54 <Zakim> +rachel_n_thomas; got it
16:09:00 <efelten> efelten has joined #dnt
16:09:02 <marc> marc has joined #dnt
16:09:04 <dsinger> plan is here, right? http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/1309-plan.html
16:09:27 <wseltzer> dsinger, yes
16:09:31 <Zakim> + +1.609.258.aatt
16:09:33 <ninjamarnau> schunter: All issues need to be named then. On October 2nd we will ask for additional change proposals on these issues. October 2nd is an issue freeze
16:09:36 <efelten> Zakim, aatt is me
16:09:36 <Zakim> +efelten; got it
16:09:43 <JackHobaugh> +q
16:09:56 <jchester2> yes, spell out the documentation.
16:09:56 <ninjamarnau> susanisrael: I don't know what you mean by documentation
16:09:58 <npdoty> I think the text of change proposals (with rationale), as opposed to names of issues
16:10:22 <wseltzer> q+ to note the HowTo
16:10:34 <ninjamarnau> schunter: description, one change proposal at least, and the rational why this is an issue
16:10:50 <justin> Yes, that's the plan, but I don't believe it reflects the latest revision (full texts/rationales on a few long-standing issues by October 2)
16:11:08 <npdoty> q?
16:11:13 <npdoty> ack dwainberg
16:11:15 <ninjamarnau> schunter: I can try to make this mor clear
16:11:18 <schunter> ack dw
16:11:27 <dsinger> so, documentation means that the issue is explained, the rationale, and so on, and at least one CP is proposed, but it remains open to other CPs
16:11:29 <dsinger> ?
16:12:01 <ninjamarnau> dwainberg: Same concern as susanisrael. Do you accept change proposals for the old issues after October 2nd?
16:12:09 <npdoty> the plan suggests that when taking up each issue we'll ask for counter-proposals if necessary (or maybe we'll consolidate proposals, etc.)
16:12:11 <Chapell> Chapell has joined #DNT
16:12:34 <ninjamarnau> schunter: yes, we will ask for change proposals after October 2nd. On issue by issue basis
16:12:40 <wseltzer> q-
16:13:01 <justin> Yes, dwainberg, we will send a new email later today.
16:13:16 <ninjamarnau> dwainber: please write an email with details. This multitude of deadlines is confusing.
16:14:00 <ninjamarnau> ... please explain the meaning of poll. this is crucial for how to answer
16:14:35 <dsinger> …suspects we are trying to identify which ways forward are 'viable' (if any), and if several are, which might be preferred (least opposition etc.)
16:14:44 <ninjamarnau> schunter: This is not a decision poll. We will analyse and compile the input and forward it to the w3c chair
16:14:54 <npdoty> q?
16:15:17 <jchester2> Justin:  I hope there isnt a co-chair always gets into trouble disease!
16:15:29 <schunter> q?
16:15:35 <npdoty> ack JackHobaugh
16:15:36 <justin> jchester2, I'm pretty sure it's part of the job :(
16:15:41 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:15:59 <ninjamarnau> JackHobaugh: Question on the change history you put up
16:16:24 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:16:30 <ninjamarnau> ... subset of issues for October 2nd. There is quite a lot of material. What else do you expect.
16:16:38 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 14 seconds I heard sound from the following: JackHobaugh (4%), [IPcaller] (74%), rachel_n_thomas (3%)
16:16:53 <wseltzer> zakim, [IPc is justin
16:16:53 <Zakim> +justin; got it
16:17:01 <jeff> +1 to what Justin said
16:17:10 <Zakim> +johnsimpson
16:17:15 <schunter> We should double check whether these issues already satisfy our quality criteria. If yes, we should say something like "no further work is needed here".
16:17:21 <ninjamarnau> justin: You have a point. This is why we chose these issues. They do not necessarily need much more documentation until Oct 2nd. So we can soon start working on them.
16:17:44 <schunter> q
16:17:44 <ninjamarnau> justin: we don't make a decision. we will then start the discussion.
16:18:10 <wseltzer> q?
16:18:11 <schunter> q?
16:18:11 <johnsimpson> q?
16:18:14 <schunter> q?
16:18:31 <ninjamarnau> schunter: After Oct. 2nd issue freeze. But time to work on those raised and open issues.
16:18:43 <wseltzer> Topic: Our perspective on how to shape change proposals
16:18:59 <ninjamarnau> schunter: What kind of change proposals do we expect
16:19:21 <ninjamarnau> ... I believe the more balanced a change proposal is, the more successful it will be
16:19:31 <dsinger> zakim, who is making noise?
16:19:41 <Zakim> dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (63%), RobMichael? (9%), FPFJoeN (4%)
16:19:57 <FPFJoeN> Zakim, please mute FPFJoeN
16:19:57 <Zakim> FPFJoeN should now be muted
16:19:59 <ninjamarnau> ... we encourage you to propose consent change proposals
16:20:16 <npdoty> Zakim, please mute RobMichael
16:20:16 <Zakim> RobMichael? should now be muted
16:20:20 <ninjamarnau> ... we also expect a lot of merging of different change proposals
16:20:58 <ninjamarnau> ... this will be a lot of work. But we consider it as the most promising way to reach consensus.
16:21:00 <Zakim> -paulohm
16:21:42 <justin> q?
16:21:53 <schunter> q?
16:22:12 <wseltzer> Topic: Publication of revised Working Draft on  October 01
16:22:36 <ninjamarnau> schunter: Now item no 5. We agreed to publish the next version of the working draft on Oct. 1st
16:22:38 <dsinger> zakim, who is making noise?
16:22:49 <Zakim> dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (25%)
16:22:55 <ninjamarnau> ... we started implementing additional suggestions in the draft.
16:23:16 <ninjamarnau> ... I ask for additional editorial changes
16:23:16 <justin> Was npdoty mainitaing a separate list of editorial changes?
16:23:26 <npdoty> ack npdoty
16:23:33 <ninjamarnau> ... fundamental issues get pushed into the issues list
16:23:35 <schunter> q?
16:23:45 <susanisrael> q+
16:23:48 <schunter> I can mute the train (including myself ;-)
16:23:48 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
16:23:48 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
16:23:49 <schunter> q?
16:23:53 <ninjamarnau> ndoty. Yes. I do have a list of editorial changes.
16:24:15 <Zakim> + +1.917.318.aauu
16:24:36 <npdoty> q?
16:24:39 <npdoty> ack susanisrael
16:24:41 <schunter> ack su
16:24:46 <ninjamarnau> schunter: Please send editorial changes on the list.
16:24:54 <justin> Agreed, vinay's editorial suggestions were very productive.
16:25:01 <npdoty> ack npdoty
16:25:05 <sidstamm> sidstamm has joined #dnt
16:25:18 <justin> npdoty, is there a public wiki where we can see proposed editorial changes?
16:25:21 <ninjamarnau> susanisrael: Nick said these editorial changes that have been previously submitted. Do we need to resubmit them?
16:25:35 <dsinger> …thinks it would be good to create action items (as I did for the Vinay message) for the editors so it's clear what the editors need to do. "editors to implement CP3 for issue X"
16:25:43 <Zakim> -BerinSzoka
16:25:56 <johnsimpson> will we see a proposed working draft and be able to react to it before it is published?
16:26:16 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
16:26:16 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
16:26:21 <ninjamarnau> npdoty: I will communicate it to the group when we worked through this list. You then can point us to an issue we have missed.
16:26:27 <Chapell> zakim, aauu is chapell
16:26:27 <Zakim> +chapell; got it
16:26:45 <npdoty> justin, I think you're probably right, I should have a wiki list of editorial issues
16:26:56 <npdoty> ack npdoty
16:26:59 <johnsimpson> so we will see proposed WD before it is published, right?
16:27:22 <ninjamarnau> schunter: two good suggestions: list of editorial changes. And freeze the weekend before and send the changed draft to the group
16:27:31 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
16:27:31 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
16:27:46 <npdoty> action: doty to create wiki list of editorial issues
16:27:46 <trackbot> Created ACTION-431 - Create wiki list of editorial issues [on Nick Doty - due 2013-10-02].
16:28:09 <WileyS> One of the core questions was would "options under consideration" be added back to the draft?
16:28:28 <ninjamarnau> ... (missed the question of johnsimpson)
16:28:41 <npdoty> action: west to implement editorial changes on Compliance draft (with dsinger, npdoty)
16:28:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-432 - Implement editorial changes on compliance draft (with dsinger, npdoty) [on Heather West - due 2013-10-02].
16:28:51 <ninjamarnau> schinter: don't expect fundamental changes. We should keep it as editorial changes.
16:28:54 <npdoty> action-431 due today
16:28:54 <trackbot> Set action-431 Create wiki list of editorial issues due date to 2013-09-25.
16:28:55 <WileyS> Only providing a single option provides a false expectation that the working group is "leaning towards" that outcome.  I'm not sure everyone feels that is a far representation.
16:29:04 <johnsimpson> q?
16:29:09 <laurengelman> laurengelman has joined #dnt
16:29:12 <npdoty> action-432 due friday
16:29:12 <trackbot> Set action-432 Implement editorial changes on compliance draft (with dsinger, npdoty) due date to 2013-09-27.
16:29:20 <Zakim> +??P14
16:29:26 <dsinger> guys, editorials should be easy.  if anyone disagrees that it's editorial, we revert and an issue can be made. if the edit is unsatisfactory, keep nagging the editors to do better.
16:29:44 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
16:29:49 <dsinger> action-432?
16:29:49 <trackbot> action-432 -- Heather West to Implement editorial changes on compliance draft (with dsinger, npdoty) -- due 2013-09-27 -- OPEN
16:29:49 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/432
16:29:51 <WileyS> Thank you - I agree with at least pointing to the issue tracker within the document
16:29:51 <sidstamm> Zakim, Mozilla has me
16:29:51 <Zakim> +sidstamm; got it
16:29:57 <npdoty> we have tried to note (in bold) in the status of the document that reviewers should be looking at the change proposals as well, because the current text doesn't represent a preference of the group
16:29:58 <wseltzer> zakim, ??p14 is probably laurengelman
16:29:58 <Zakim> +laurengelman?; got it
16:30:00 <WileyS> This provides a pathway to the options under consideration
16:30:07 <laurengelman> Zakim, ??P14 is laurengelman
16:30:07 <Zakim> I already had ??P14 as laurengelman?, laurengelman
16:30:17 <WileyS> +1
16:30:18 <npdoty> yes, we always point to the issue list and to the list of change proposals
16:30:18 <johnsimpson> q?
16:30:29 <schunter> q?
16:30:31 <ninjamarnau> ... The fundamental issues should be added within the next two months.
16:30:32 <johnsimpson> q?
16:30:48 <npdoty> dsinger, yes, my action 431 to compile the list is due today :)
16:30:54 <justin> (Many of which are duplicative)
16:30:57 <ninjamarnau> WileyS: We had an initial set of issues where we know text will come.
16:31:07 <Zakim> + +1.650.465.aavv
16:31:26 <ninjamarnau> ... this could be integrated in the draft. To give a more clear image of where the WG stands at this moment
16:31:33 <npdoty> I believe we have issue pointers in the draft to that list of 24 or whatever it is
16:31:37 <npdoty> ack npdoty
16:31:41 <dsinger> I cannot, I go to a wedding tomorrow
16:32:03 <schunter> Does one of the editors have time to include issue pointers to the existing issues into the document?
16:32:07 <justin> I could probably do it on the flight back.  I think it's mostly in there now, but can make sure.
16:32:17 <schunter> ok.
16:32:19 <hwest> I may be able to put some time in on Friday, but can't commit to getting them all in there - quite a task, I think
16:32:26 <ninjamarnau> npdoty: I think you are asking about issue pointers in the new draft
16:32:41 <ninjamarnau> ... I will make sure these are integrated before publishing
16:32:47 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
16:32:47 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
16:33:07 <wseltzer> [note that the ISSUEs are positioned by JavaScript, so reading with NoScript, you don't see them ]
16:33:16 <justin> Fair point.
16:33:20 <susanisrael>  * agree that Nick is awesome
16:33:23 <WileyS> -q
16:33:24 <schunter> q?
16:33:41 <npdoty> [ wseltzer, in the Public Working Draft, they're rendered in static html ]
16:34:08 <npdoty> Topic: Survey of newly raised issues
16:34:29 <johnsimpson> q?
16:34:29 <schunter> q?
16:34:33 <npdoty> ack npdoty
16:34:47 <ninjamarnau> schunter: item no 6. Option to now stand up to the group and explain a new issue and its rationale
16:34:50 <vinay> Yep
16:35:01 <ninjamarnau> npdoty: vinay has sent a lot. most were editorial
16:35:28 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
16:35:28 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
16:35:30 <ninjamarnau> ... we added these change proposals to the wiki. vinay you want to explain?
16:35:33 <npdoty> ack npdoty
16:35:36 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
16:35:36 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
16:35:41 <schunter> Qß
16:35:46 <schunter> q?
16:35:48 <npdoty> npdoty: awesome that we'll be able to consolidate with other proposals
16:36:04 <schunter> q?
16:36:27 <npdoty> Topic: Review of Status of ISSUE-10
16:36:39 <wseltzer> ISSUE-10?
16:36:39 <trackbot> ISSUE-10 -- What is a first party? -- open
16:36:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/10
16:37:09 <justin> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Party_Definitions
16:37:16 <ninjamarnau> schunter: Closer look at status on issue 10. We want to reach consensus or get to clear alternatives
16:37:50 <ninjamarnau> justin: we have discussed this issue a lot. What is a (first) party. productive discussion on the list
16:38:13 <ninjamarnau> ... roy and walter had a productive discussion on visibility
16:38:32 <dwainberg> q+
16:38:44 <dwainberg> ok
16:38:44 <schunter> q?
16:38:48 <ninjamarnau> ... please take a look at roy's language proposal
16:39:47 <johnsimpson> q?
16:39:51 <ninjamarnau> ... 1. discoverability. Does it makes sense to require a link from each page
16:40:01 <ninjamarnau> ... or rather dynamic in the privacy policy
16:40:18 <jchester2> This would need to be tested to ensure meaningful discoverability.  +1
16:40:24 <jchester2> +q
16:40:25 <ninjamarnau> is easily discoverable a possible compromise?
16:40:30 <WileyS> Okay with a link from the Privacy Policy -AND- a programmatic set URI location for this as well
16:40:31 <justin> ack jchester2
16:40:34 <dsinger> isn't the well-known resource 'easily discoverable'?  and it doesn't impact visual design
16:40:35 <jchester2> zakim, unmute me
16:40:35 <Zakim> jchester2 was not muted, jchester2
16:40:37 <justin> Thanks, WileyS
16:40:53 <npdoty> ack jchester
16:41:07 <susanisrael> I believe Amy Colando previously proposed putting a link in the privacy policy, There may be a change proposal.
16:41:17 <johnsimpson> q?
16:41:24 <WileyS> Does anyone disagree?  Adding a link in the Privacy policy -AND- allowing for a well-known URI address for this information?
16:41:24 <ninjamarnau> jchester2: people have to know and understand the relationships. at the moment it is not designed this way. privacy policies don't work.
16:41:27 <justin> Yes, susanisrael, I meant to get to that.
16:41:39 <susanisrael> Justin, thanks.
16:41:41 <ninjamarnau> ... discoverability needs to be designed and tested with real users.
16:42:10 <fielding> +q
16:42:36 <ninjamarnau> we need to set up a team, independent academics, to figure out how to convey this information
16:42:59 <ninjamarnau> sorry, this was meant as jchester's quote
16:43:00 <johnsimpson> q?
16:43:05 <jchester2> zakim, mute me
16:43:05 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
16:43:05 <WileyS> Won't the academic approach add many months to the timeline to determine this single issue?  If we do this for each issue we're about 5 years away from DNT v1.  :-)
16:43:08 <npdoty> ack fielding
16:43:14 <npdoty> s/we need to/jchester: we need to/
16:43:32 <johnsimpson> q?
16:43:35 <ninjamarnau> fielding: the language I suggested does not say how to do it.
16:43:42 <jchester2> Let's test using how a user can address what happens with Adobe Audience mamager, for example
16:44:00 <ninjamarnau> ... this depends on who and how knowledgeable the user is.
16:44:13 <npdoty> WileyS, yeah, postponing on research would be harmful for the schedule. maybe we could add this as a condition of Last Call: to do tests of implementation once we have them
16:44:34 <justin> WileyS, don't even!
16:45:16 <npdoty> jchester2, if the concern is over usability testing of implementations, we could start on a plan now for doing the testing once we reach Last Call or a Call for Implementations
16:45:17 <johnsimpson> q?
16:45:21 <ChrisPedigoOPA> q+
16:45:47 <jchester2> We have a responsibility to global Internet users to create the best effective approach to deliver a DNT system.
16:45:58 <justin> ack chris
16:45:58 <npdoty> ack ChrisPedigoOPA
16:46:03 <johnsimpson> q?
16:46:20 <dsinger> …agrees with Roy that mandating visual design is beyond our scope, but that Privacy Policy + WKR is good
16:46:29 <jchester2> Nick.  I agree we should start a plan for testing all this.  We should pull together an international team of experts
16:46:40 <npdoty> ack npdoty
16:46:42 <justin> susan?
16:46:44 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
16:46:44 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
16:46:50 <npdoty> scribenick: ChrisPedigoOPA
16:46:52 <susanisrael> nick, I can scribe if you want
16:46:57 <npdoty> scribenick: susanisrael
16:46:57 <schunter> Thanks to Ninja for scribing!"
16:47:19 <ninjamarnau_> ninjamarnau_ has joined #dnt
16:47:28 <susanisrael> chris pedigo: would like additional flexibility for companies to talk about actual affiliates or brands.  there are different ways to education users
16:47:33 <fielding> I forgot to clarify also: if we want to restrict the Oct 1 publication to purely editorial changes, then we can fix the definition as I described and add the must-link-from-every-page requirement to the section on First Party.
16:48:01 <ninjamarnau_> thanks susanisrael. You want me to take over again?
16:48:08 <susanisrael> justin: we will get to david w's proposal.  An additional idea we had talked about was that there will probably not be multiple first parties.  Roy had objections on 3 grounds.
16:48:28 <WileyS> Multiple 1st party will need to be supported - the question is the bar of disclosure / visibility to users.
16:50:02 <susanisrael> justin: .....one was "service providers." another was that people are trying to interact with more than one resource at once.  (search on fried bunnies example from roy's email's).  Roy--is the first concern or the second
16:50:07 <susanisrael> more important...
16:50:37 <susanisrael> [sorry-gap in scribing] roy: users do try to interact with more than one party.  ex. when you hit a link on google.com
16:51:07 <susanisrael> justin: good example.  can you put into change proposal?  david also had a different definition of party.  describe?
16:51:09 <npdoty> ack dwainberg
16:51:54 <jchester2> Can we spend some time talking about this multiple first party issue?  I am concerned that given the cross platform user tracking, the integration of wide ranging partners etc, that a huge privacy loophole is being created.
16:51:54 <dsinger> issue-10?
16:51:54 <trackbot> issue-10 -- What is a first party? -- open
16:51:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/10
16:52:03 <susanisrael> davidwainberg: my email explained it.  Main point was that ownership on its own is not a great factor for judging/crafting a privacy policy around.  I'd rather see something that makes more sense for privacy and is more equitable for competition
16:52:07 <Chapell> dwainberg: ownership on its own is not a great factor for judging a privacy policy - and he'd rather see somethign that makes more sense for privacy and is more equitable for competition.
16:52:53 <susanisrael> justin: so if you go to ny times and ad network on site, and ad networks on site.  They and other publishers are all iab members.  would they all be one party?
16:53:26 <dsinger> is this the email we are discussing? <http://www.w3.org/mid/5241BF12.3030106@appnexus.com>
16:53:31 <schunter> What is the alternative to "ownership" that david proposes?
16:53:33 <susanisrael> davidwainberg: looking at ownership alone does not mean user understands who that is or what policies apply. so that's a poor measure for privacy.
16:54:00 <npdoty> justin, dsinger, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0128.html
16:54:00 <dsinger> oh.  try http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0128.html
16:54:02 <jchester2> +q
16:54:04 <susanisrael> dwainberg: common set of rules is better for privacy.
16:54:10 <jchester2> zakim, unmute me
16:54:10 <Zakim> jchester2 should no longer be muted
16:54:25 <susanisrael> dwainberg: don't know whether saying all third parties are iab members would be adequate.
16:54:29 <WileyS> 'common ownership and common control' - 'control' here implies the same privacy structure represented to users
16:54:37 <npdoty> I thought ownership was one condition, but not the entire set of conditions, for being a party which shares data with its affiliates
16:54:52 <Zakim> -rachel_n_thomas
16:54:56 <susanisrael> justin: with your criticism of ownership test you are echoing some of jeff's concerns about discoverability. it's a novel concept
16:55:14 <susanisrael> justin: can you try to put this into normative text with the argumentation around it.
16:55:15 <dsinger> +1 to Shane: there are two problems here; is this 'one responsibility' (common owner) and is there 'a single set of rules'? (common policy)
16:55:25 <Chapell> @wileys - we may need a better definition of common control
16:55:34 <susanisrael> +1 to dsinger
16:56:21 <susanisrael> justin: it sounded like you weren't entirely clear yourself about how parties should be treated in that context.  pls provide normative text by oct 2
16:56:30 <npdoty> ack jchester
16:57:08 <schunter> q?
16:57:13 <susanisrael> jeffchester2: haven't been on list but what is multiple first party concept? need to see that in writing so we can analyze it.  Are people proposing that here, that there would be multiple first parties in a transaction.
16:57:14 <WileyS> Jeff - there are limited situations where more than one first party could exist - att.yahoo.com
16:57:21 <npdoty> jchester2, there is a paragraph on multiple first parties in the draft, if you want to look at concrete text: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#first-party
16:57:25 <susanisrael> justin: att-yahoo example is one instance
16:57:27 <fielding> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0102.html
16:57:31 <WileyS> Considerable amount of text here already
16:57:42 <WileyS> I have already
16:57:47 <ChrisPedigoOPA> q+
16:58:06 <susanisrael> jeffchester2: i want to see it in writing, because there are chaning relationships/further integration, want to understand what people supporting this are asking for so we understand what it means.
16:58:45 <fielding> google.com
16:59:09 <susanisrael> jeffchester2: i want to take this offline, but we are all pressed and i would like to have real examples. information is vague and indecipherable and a possible huge loophole.
16:59:53 <ChrisPedigoOPA> q-
16:59:54 <fielding> It's a one paragraph example, based on common search services.
16:59:54 <susanisrael> justin: share concerns but one example i had not previously considered is google search results
17:00:06 <susanisrael> jeffchester2: we have to think about all the products and examples.
17:00:51 <susanisrael> jeffchester2: paid or organic search?
17:00:56 <Zakim> -Peder_Magee
17:00:56 <susanisrael> fielding: does not matter
17:01:13 <npdoty> I think Rob Sherman's emails from several months ago might provide detailed examples of platforms that host other content (which is where we got text about co-branding, etc.)
17:01:17 <susanisrael> jeffchester2: does, in terms of company's ability to further its data collection goals.
17:01:36 <susanisrael> fielding: normal search results from google have links back to google.
17:01:42 <justin> I remember jmayer (pour some out) also used brands on Tumblr as an example.
17:02:12 <hwest> Isn't that a first party interaction when they click?
17:02:15 <WileyS> Wouldn't the "click" represent a "meaningful interaction" thus moving what would have been a 3rd party on that page into the 1st party role?  I think we already handle this issue.
17:02:24 <susanisrael> ....we have to decide whether user is interacting with google or final destination of link.  It's reasonable to consider this as an example where user is aware of google and the final destination.
17:02:35 <WileyS> Heather +1 (great minds think alike :-) )
17:02:43 <moneill2> all the user wants is not to be tracked - by anyone (if they have set DNT)
17:02:44 <susanisrael> jeffchester2: this discussion stretches reality in terms of average user experience.
17:03:30 <ChrisPedigoOPA> +1 to WileyS
17:03:40 <susanisrael> matthias: no one ever said that in this scenario the other party should be considered first party.  all google knows in first party context is that user clicked link, then the other party is first party.....
17:03:43 <Zakim> +BerinSzoka
17:03:46 <justin> jchester2, I think it is reasonable to be concerned about an exception that swallows the rule.  Any normative text should absolutely be scrutinized with that in mind (I think I'm allowed to say that as chair :) )
17:03:47 <jchester2> zakim, mute me
17:03:47 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
17:03:48 <justin> q?
17:04:01 <susanisrael> jeffchester2: i need to understand data sharing in this arrangement when dnt is in effect.
17:04:06 <WileyS> moneill2 - some users may have that intent but I don't believe you can speak for all users who use DNT today.  Its up to this group to define what DNT means and then help users understand how this works.  If users want something more, they always have other options available to them.
17:04:23 <Zakim> - +1.650.465.aavv
17:04:38 <susanisrael> justin: issue 10 and related are up for anyone who wants to provide normative text at a moment, and we have already made a lot of assignments.
17:04:43 <jchester2> I agree.  I would like to hear from Google, Yahoo, Microsoft.
17:04:45 <schunter> q?
17:04:47 <Chapell> I think what Jeff is highlighting here is that most users are not doing to understand the distinctions we are drawing in this group
17:04:52 <susanisrael> matthias: would like to understand how google would like this to work.
17:04:54 <fielding> My only goal in suggesting this change is that the document we produce not be logically incorrect regarding an actual Web use case. It can be fixed one way or the other, only one of which will be implemented in reality.
17:05:10 <susanisrael> justin: i think roy described what they might say, but others can work on own or with Roy
17:05:25 <schunter> q?
17:06:03 <susanisrael> justin: i think we did a good job talking about some of the issues, and it helped me.  Let's let matthias talk about tracking for a bit.
17:06:06 <wseltzer> ISSUE-5?
17:06:06 <trackbot> ISSUE-5 -- What is the definition of tracking? -- open
17:06:06 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/5
17:06:11 <npdoty> Topic: Review of Status of ISSUE-5
17:06:11 <fielding> the actual change here is s/the/a/ (twice, in one sentence)
17:06:15 <schunter> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Tracking_Definition
17:06:26 <WileyS> Alan - Aleecia's research showed that users actually do understand the difference between a 1st party and a 3rd party.  They didn't understand how data collection though worked the same/differently between them.
17:06:39 <susanisrael> schunter: we have like 6 different proposals re: tracking definition, one of which is that we don't need to define it at all.  Latest proposal is form roy.
17:06:45 <justin> fielding, yes, thank you, your proposals were very helpful.
17:07:04 <susanisrael> .....latest draft definition (reads it) and roy made a detailed proposal to change this.
17:07:11 <schunter> q?
17:07:28 <dsinger> I proposed a definition to establish the scope of what we are talking about.  Data that is not "tracking" is not our concern.
17:07:59 <npdoty> dsinger, I don't have a change proposal from you on that wiki page -- do you want to submit something on that?
17:08:00 <susanisrael> fielding: why do we need a definition? the way http works header fields define a preference from sender, in this case "not to be tracked" and what "tracking" means.  that's most important detail
17:08:12 <Chapell> WileyS - didn't realize you were such a fan of the expectations research  (:
17:08:13 <justin> dsinger, In the pre-June editors' draft, "tracking" was defined in the scope document (instead of in the definitions, as it was not an operative term within the standard.)
17:08:16 <susanisrael> ....for http.  determines if semantics on both sides are being honored.
17:08:24 <dsinger> Ah, yes, I will submit a 'no change' proposal, probably.
17:08:38 <susanisrael> fielding: you can see in formal specs for http and also in actual behavior of http implementations
17:08:41 <justin> s/document/section/
17:09:03 <susanisrael> ...a business might say if i get dnt 1 i will not track user but we have to know what that means.
17:09:16 <ninjamarnau_> I think in fieldings definition the problem of definition is just shifted from "tracking" to "following"
17:09:17 <dsinger> q+
17:09:51 <susanisrael> fileding:  that's the reason to define.  in my experience as protocol developer you can't have http header without defining semantics
17:09:51 <justin> OK, thanks.
17:09:59 <susanisrael> justin: ok in intro to document?
17:10:15 <susanisrael> fielding: ok with location up front.  prefer in scope or first sentence.
17:10:16 <WileyS> Alan - not a "fan" persay, but hearing that users actually understood the difference between 1st party and 3rd party was a surprise to me as I would have thought the average user wouldn't understand this.
17:10:19 <justin> ack dsinger
17:10:21 <schunter> q?
17:10:36 <susanisrael> dsinger: agree with roy mostly also if you are doing something outside tracking then your behavior is not our concern.
17:11:07 <susanisrael> ....later in document you may find permitted use or exemption but still narrowing field of data we need to worry about helps us and reader undrestand what is in scope.
17:11:08 <justin> Anyone disagree?
17:11:21 <jchester2> +1
17:11:24 <schunter> q?
17:11:27 <dwainberg> Shane -- do you think users understand affiliates?
17:11:28 <susanisrael> schunter: does anyone on call feel we should not define tracking?
17:11:36 <jchester2> I don't think we should define it
17:11:40 <johnsimpson> I continue believe that a definition is unnecessary...
17:11:41 <jchester2> zakim, unmute me'
17:11:41 <Zakim> sorry, jchester2, I do not know which phone connection belongs to me'
17:11:44 <dwainberg> I don't recall what the scope of 1st party was in that research.
17:11:52 <susanisrael> schunter: jeffchester: why not?
17:11:59 <justin> jchester2, Would you be OK with language in the scope section saying what we're trying to accomplish here? :)
17:12:02 <jchester2> zakim, unmute me
17:12:02 <Zakim> jchester2 should no longer be muted
17:12:05 <Zakim> -RobMichael?
17:12:16 <susanisrael> schunter: unnecessary does not explain if some people find it necessary.  Is there harm in having the defintion.
17:12:21 <npdoty_> npdoty_ has joined #dnt
17:12:28 <WileyS> David - I believe users understand that companies may own other companies.  What I don't believe they understand is how that applies to online activities and/or where to find where that list exists for each company.  That is why I support a well-known resource for this information.
17:12:32 <susanisrael> jeffchester: it's complex so we shouldn't define it.
17:12:48 <Brooks> so tracking means you are on this call?
17:13:01 <johnsimpson> q+
17:13:03 <dsinger> Jeff, we can't ask industry to stop doing something we can't define.  "I know it when I see it" is a terrible definition
17:13:07 <susanisrael> jeffchester: everyone on call knows what they do and i think we should make the companies responsible and i don't see how we can make narrow distinctions but then would need more time to respond.
17:13:13 <WileyS> We need an narrow definition for v1 or we'll never make progress in this group
17:13:22 <dwainberg> q+
17:13:25 <jchester2> zakim, mute me
17:13:25 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
17:13:28 <npdoty_> q?
17:13:29 <Zakim> -schunter
17:13:34 <npdoty_> ack npdoty
17:13:36 <justin> I don't think the language I previously proposed (and that Roy has re-proposed) is narrow.  But I'm also not sure it's in the Wiki (cc npdoty)
17:13:40 <susanisrael> jeffchester2: i think people know what they are doing and they should respect standard and halt surveillance.  would need time to define/evaluate
17:13:41 <johnsimpson> q?
17:13:42 <dsinger> also, no definition leaves it to each operator to define it themselves…not ideal
17:13:48 <npdoty_> ack johnsimpson
17:13:49 <jeff> q+
17:13:54 <schunter> justin can you take over for a minute?
17:13:54 <dwainberg> q-
17:13:57 <johnsimpson> anybody there? hearing nothing
17:14:02 <justin> Yes.
17:14:07 <jchester2> is John muted?
17:14:14 <WileyS> David - I'm okay with operators defining for themselves too :-)
17:14:25 <BerinSzoka> BerinSzoka has joined #DNT
17:14:31 <Chapell> I agree - we need a definition, and it should be narrow. However, I would caution the group to be careful about making decisions that have severe competive ramifications with marginal privacy gains
17:14:33 <npdoty_> q?
17:14:43 <johnsimpson> I'm bumped off the call.Will call back
17:14:44 <npdoty_> zakim, mute me
17:14:44 <Zakim> sorry, npdoty_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:14:44 <ninjamarnau_> vote not for a norrow but for a clear definition of what we want to address with the spec
17:14:49 <Zakim> -johnsimpson
17:14:52 <BerinSzoka> I just want to point out that Jeff Chester didn't remotely come close to answering the question: why NOT define tracking
17:15:20 <susanisrael> jeff: Matthias had asked whether anyone thought we should not define tracking.  Jeffchester expressed concern that definition would be too narrow.  Then right thing to do would be to submit
17:15:25 <Zakim> +johnsimpson
17:15:34 <dwainberg> q+
17:15:39 <jeff> ack je
17:15:41 <johnsimpson> q?
17:15:47 <susanisrael> ....change proposal that you are more comfortable with and group could decide which is better.
17:15:53 <jchester2> I would rather the industry propose their own definition of tracking--so we can examine what they actually do and have a public debate.
17:16:05 <johnsimpson> q+
17:16:20 <susanisrael> justin: roy had said some time before that proposed language was not terrible (strong praise) so jeff and industry could look at that previously proposed definition
17:16:27 <npdoty> ack dwainberg
17:16:27 <jeff> [Jeff, the best way to make progress if you don't like existing proposals is to submit your own.]
17:16:55 <Zakim> +schunter
17:17:21 <susanisrael> daivdwainberg: i would caution us against a definition that does not accurately reflect what we are trying to accomplish .....might end up with spec that is confusing to users
17:17:26 <justin> q?
17:17:36 <npdoty> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:17:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see Wendy, lsheena (muted), Jeff, ninjamarnau, npdoty, dwainberg, JackHobaugh, hwest, Brooks, Joanne, vinay, Fielding, dsinger, mecallahan, jchester2 (muted),
17:17:39 <Zakim> ... hefferjr, FPFJoeN (muted), matt, SusanIsrael, RichardWeaver, LeeTien, WileyS, Chris_Pedigo, [FTC], Ari, [Microsoft], adrianba, moneill2, justin, efelten, chapell,
17:17:39 <Zakim> ... laurengelman?, [Mozilla], BerinSzoka, johnsimpson, schunter
17:17:39 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
17:17:39 <susanisrael> justin: worth noting jeff jaffe's advice to make your own proposal
17:17:42 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
17:17:42 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
17:17:48 <fielding> I would like a definition that exactly fits what a user wants to turn off, or at least as close as possible that the browser companies are willing to use that in their description of the configuration option.
17:18:06 <fielding> q+
17:18:12 <jchester2> I hope you appreciate the limited resources NGOs have here--especially as we are dealing with the databroker expansion of data gathering.
17:18:15 <npdoty> fielding, does that mean we have to fit the whole spec into that definition?
17:18:24 <susanisrael> davidwainberg: circling back to process/deadlines, seems that tracking and first party might both be tied to/interdependent with change proposals to come later.
17:18:36 <susanisrael> schunter: according to plan we don't keep it open.
17:18:51 <WileyS> Jeff - we're all stretched - I don't believe NGOs have some unique situation there.
17:18:52 <fielding> npdoty, we have to fit the entirety of the user's expression, yes -- otherwise it isn't their expression
17:18:56 <susanisrael> .....if at later stage there are inconsistencies we will repair.
17:18:57 <dsinger> I think roughly DNT = "I don't want entities that I am unaware of, didn't intend to interact with, and cannot see, keeping records about my web activity"
17:19:03 <schunter> It would be also good if you have particular practices that are outside the definitions and should be including.
17:19:04 <schunter> i am back
17:19:10 <moneill2> dsinger, +1
17:19:18 <susanisrael> schunter: at some point will issue calls for change proposals.
17:19:19 <justin> dsinger, that's basically what my def said.
17:19:27 <jchester2> Shane.  I think that's absurd and not what I would expect from Yahoo.
17:19:31 <dsinger> what's the close date for CPs for this issue?
17:19:47 <schunter> AFAIR, 2 weeks after we issue the call.
17:20:03 <schunter> (look into plan for normative language)
17:20:17 <susanisrael> justin: david i hear what you're saying and as matthias said we are trying to take a different approach now rather than keeping everything open.  It won't be perfect, and we'll be aware of issues and make adjustments.
17:20:19 <johnsimpson> q?
17:20:19 <justin> q?
17:20:24 <WileyS> Jeff - I work 16 hours a day on average - how is that absurd?
17:20:38 <susanisrael> schunter: find one of the definitions that exist and see if you can make it work.
17:20:42 <npdoty> ack johnsimpson
17:20:46 <schunter> ack jo
17:20:47 <jchester2> I am working 7 days a week myself--stay tuned for forthcoming products!
17:21:26 <susanisrael> johnsimpson: i always thought defining tracking was not necessary because what the spec does not allow is tracking but if group feels definition is necessary i can live with that if we find a good one...
17:21:30 <WileyS> Jeff - understood (although on weekends I drop to about 10 hours a day).  I'm just saying that most people I speak to - across the board - are working crazy hours right now.  Something in the water?
17:21:30 <npdoty> ack fielding
17:21:34 <schunter> ack fiel
17:21:40 <susanisrael> ...what's in editor's draft and jmayer's defintion look good.
17:22:02 <dsinger> q+
17:22:14 <jchester2> Shane:  Agreed.  It's the water (although I don't work for Melissa Mayer!
17:22:19 <schunter> ack d
17:22:22 <npdoty> ack dsinger
17:22:26 <susanisrael> fielding: in my opinion this is the issue on which all others depend, it does not itself depend on others except maybe "user." all adobe's answers depend on how we define tracking.
17:22:45 <jchester2> Can Roy use Adobe's business model to propose how they would define tracking?
17:22:49 <susanisrael> dsinger: definition is long.  can you explore edge cases and provide examples?
17:22:54 <susanisrael> fielding: possibly.
17:23:14 <susanisrael> dsinger. cool.  would be interesting to see why some things are or are not tracking.
17:23:14 <npdoty> I think "collect" "retain" and "share" are also important parts of most definitions of "tracking"
17:23:42 <BerinSzoka> Folks, remember what Brooks said in Amsterdam: his son asked him where he was going. When he said "Do Not Track," his son asked the question we should ALL agree ought to be answered before we can proceed; "Daddy, what's tracking?" Disagreement about the answer is one thing, but it's absurd that we're still debating whether we should have an answer
17:23:45 <susanisrael> fielding: definition includes both type of data and use of data.  so something might not be tracking but can't be used for tracking.
17:23:55 <dsinger> if "collect" and "retain" are in a definition, I want them distinguished
17:24:01 <susanisrael> fielding: [example of unique screen sizes\
17:24:16 <jchester2> what if they used the data to create a score that is used at some point?
17:24:42 <WileyS> +1 to David.  If retention is dropped to anything more than a microsecond there is little distinction between collection and retention in my eyes (from a practical point of view)
17:24:45 <susanisrael> schunter: when i look at definition by jonathan and [???] look fairly similar.  OK to merge them?
17:25:09 <susanisrael> schunter: i would like to reduce number of change proposals by merging similar ones.
17:25:17 <schunter> q?
17:25:20 <npdoty> dsinger, WileyS, I'm +1 that we could likely turn those into one term with one definition
17:25:21 <susanisrael> schunter: feedback on that?
17:25:32 <susanisrael> schunter: then i will send an email to list asking if that's ok.
17:25:33 <johnsimpson> Looks to me like merging works.
17:25:40 <Zakim> -dsinger
17:25:58 <WileyS> Nick - would definitely make reading the document much easier
17:26:08 <Zakim> +dsinger
17:26:09 <npdoty> WileyS, indeed
17:26:15 <WileyS> Nick - note, "much" was probably too strong - but still easier
17:26:18 <schunter> q?
17:26:25 <susanisrael> schunter: so homework for this one is to include dwainberg proposal.....[   ] version, more to come.
17:26:45 <schunter> q?
17:26:52 <johnsimpson> q?
17:27:00 <susanisrael> schunter: call ends. we will use this pattern for the coming weeks.
17:27:12 <WileyS> Regrets for next week in advance.  Have fun.
17:27:15 <Zakim> -LeeTien
17:27:18 <Zakim> -matt
17:27:20 <Zakim> -hefferjr
17:27:24 <susanisrael> schunter: will discuss process and review change proposals.
17:27:24 <dsinger> the only 'different' meaning I can think of for 'collect' is that you took active steps to get the data (e.g. you looked something up).  I don't think we need to restrict that (e.g. determining geo loc from IP address)
17:27:25 <Zakim> -efelten
17:27:26 <Zakim> -jchester2
17:27:26 <Zakim> -Joanne
17:27:28 <Zakim> -moneill2
17:27:29 <npdoty> ack npdoty
17:27:32 <Zakim> -WileyS
17:27:34 <Zakim> -SusanIsrael
17:27:38 <Zakim> -johnsimpson
17:27:40 <Zakim> -vinay
17:27:40 <Zakim> -justin
17:27:42 <Zakim> -Ari
17:27:43 <Zakim> -[FTC]
17:27:43 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
17:27:44 <Zakim> -RichardWeaver
17:27:44 <Zakim> -dwainberg
17:27:45 <Zakim> -schunter
17:27:45 <Zakim> -adrianba
17:27:46 <npdoty> Zakim, list attendees
17:27:46 <Zakim> -dsinger
17:27:46 <Zakim> -ninjamarnau
17:27:46 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +49.172.147.aaaa, schunter, Wendy, +1.646.654.aabb, Jeff, +43.198.8aacc, npdoty, +1.646.827.aadd, lsheena, ninjamarnau, +1.202.347.aaee,
17:27:46 <Zakim> ... dwainberg, JackHobaugh, BerinSzoka, justin, +1.303.492.aaff, +1.202.346.aagg, +1.678.492.aahh, +1.916.212.aaii, paulohm, +1.215.480.aajj, Joanne, Brooks, vinay, hwest,
17:27:47 <Zakim> ... Fielding, dsinger, +1.202.639.aakk, jchester2, RobMichael?, hefferjr, +1.650.595.aall, +1.202.587.aamm, mecallahan, +1.212.231.aann, SusanIsrael, RichardWeaver,
17:27:47 <Zakim> ... +1.510.501.aaoo, FPFJoeN, WileyS, matt, LeeTien, Peder_Magee, Chris_Pedigo, [FTC], +1.650.595.aapp, [Microsoft], Ari, adrianba, +44.186.558.aaqq, [IPcaller], +1.202.478.aarr,
17:27:51 <Zakim> ... moneill2, +1.202.478.aass, rachel_n_thomas, +1.609.258.aatt, efelten, johnsimpson, +1.917.318.aauu, chapell, sidstamm, laurengelman?, +1.650.465.aavv
17:27:51 <Zakim> -chapell
17:27:51 <Zakim> -Brooks
17:27:51 <Zakim> -Wendy
17:27:51 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:27:51 <Zakim> -Chris_Pedigo
17:27:54 <Zakim> -JackHobaugh
17:27:55 <Zakim> -BerinSzoka
17:27:55 <Zakim> -npdoty
17:27:59 <npdoty> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:27:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/09/25-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
17:28:09 <Zakim> -Fielding
17:28:12 <Zakim> -laurengelman?
17:28:14 <Zakim> -FPFJoeN
17:28:28 <Zakim> -hwest
17:28:30 <npdoty> rrsagent, bye
17:28:30 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/25-dnt-actions.rdf :
17:28:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: doty to create wiki list of editorial issues [1]
17:28:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/25-dnt-irc#T16-27-46
17:28:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: west to implement editorial changes on Compliance draft (with dsinger, npdoty) [2]
17:28:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/25-dnt-irc#T16-28-41