15:27:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:27:35 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/10/09-dnt-irc
15:27:37 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:27:37 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dnt
15:27:39 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
15:27:39 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:27:40 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:27:40 <trackbot> Date: 09 October 2013
15:27:48 <wseltzer> zakim, this will be TRACK
15:27:48 <Zakim> ok, wseltzer; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 33 minutes
15:28:01 <Walter> wseltzer: hi Wendy
15:28:12 <wseltzer> hi Walter
15:28:59 <Walter> you poached Axel, I noticed
15:32:06 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
15:36:02 <Walter> :-)
15:47:35 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
15:47:41 <eberkower> eberkower has joined #dnt
15:49:16 <FPFJoeN> FPFJoeN has joined #dnt
15:50:03 <rvaneijk> rvaneijk has joined #dnt
15:50:48 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:50:56 <Zakim> + +31.65.141.aaaa
15:51:10 <rvaneijk> Zakim, aaaa is me
15:51:10 <Zakim> +rvaneijk; got it
15:52:57 <JackHobaugh> JackHobaugh has joined #dnt
15:52:58 <moneill2> moneill2 has joined #dnt
15:53:27 <sidstamm> sidstamm has joined #dnt
15:53:33 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
15:53:38 <sidstamm> Zakim, Mozilla has me
15:53:38 <Zakim> +sidstamm; got it
15:53:53 <Zakim> +Wendy
15:54:07 <Zakim> +??P14
15:54:22 <Walter> zakim, P14 is me
15:54:22 <Zakim> sorry, Walter, I do not recognize a party named 'P14'
15:54:32 <Zakim> + +1.646.654.aabb
15:54:39 <wseltzer> zakim, ??p14 is Walter
15:54:39 <Zakim> +Walter; got it
15:54:40 <Walter> Zakim: +??P14 is me
15:54:45 <eberkower> Zakim, aabb is eberkower
15:54:46 <Zakim> +eberkower; got it
15:54:52 <jeff> jeff has joined #dnt
15:55:51 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
15:56:18 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
15:56:19 <npdoty> trackbot, start meeting
15:56:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:56:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
15:56:24 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:56:24 <trackbot> Date: 09 October 2013
15:56:25 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:56:27 <npdoty> Zakim, this is TRACK
15:56:27 <Zakim> npdoty, this was already T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
15:56:28 <justin> justin has joined #dnt
15:56:29 <Zakim> ok, npdoty; that matches T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
15:56:35 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:56:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see rvaneijk, [Mozilla], Wendy, Walter, eberkower
15:56:36 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
15:56:55 <mecallahan> mecallahan has joined #DNT
15:57:09 <Zakim> + +1.202.257.aacc
15:57:21 <Zakim> + +1.202.587.aadd
15:57:33 <FPFJoeN> 202 587 is me
15:57:39 <Zakim> +??P39
15:57:39 <mecallahan> zakim, aacc is mecallahan
15:57:40 <Zakim> +mecallahan; got it
15:57:46 <wseltzer> zakim, aadd is FPFJoeN
15:57:46 <Zakim> +FPFJoeN; got it
15:57:48 <npdoty> npdoty has changed the topic to: agenda 9 October: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-announce/2013Oct/0005.html
15:57:57 <FPFJoeN> zakim mute me
15:57:59 <schunter> Zakim, ??P39 is me
15:58:00 <Zakim> +schunter; got it
15:58:07 <schunter> Zakim, mute me
15:58:07 <Zakim> schunter should now be muted
15:58:09 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
15:58:20 <schunter> Zakim, unmute me
15:58:20 <Zakim> schunter should no longer be muted
15:58:24 <FPFJoeN> Zakim, mute me
15:58:24 <Zakim> FPFJoeN should now be muted
15:58:35 <eberkower> Zakim, mute me please
15:58:35 <Zakim> eberkower should now be muted
15:58:39 <Zakim> +Carl
15:58:57 <hwest> hwest has joined #dnt
15:59:02 <Zakim> +npdoty
15:59:08 <Zakim> + +1.202.347.aaee
15:59:13 <npdoty> Zakim, mute me
15:59:14 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
15:59:18 <Zakim> +[CDT]
15:59:23 <Zakim> +BerinSzoka
15:59:25 <JackHobaugh> Zakim, aaee is me
15:59:25 <carlcargill> carlcargill has joined #dnt
15:59:25 <Zakim> +JackHobaugh; got it
15:59:36 <justin> zakim, cdt has me
15:59:36 <Zakim> + +1.203.563.aaff
15:59:36 <Zakim> +justin; got it
15:59:54 <GSHans> GSHans has joined #DNT
15:59:58 <npdoty> ack npdoty
16:00:00 <kj> kj has joined #dnt
16:00:04 <justin> zakim, cdt has gashans
16:00:04 <Zakim> +gashans; got it
16:00:08 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
16:00:10 <WaltMichel> WaltMichel has joined #DNT
16:00:11 <Zakim> + +1.301.325.aagg
16:00:21 <justin> zakim, CDT has GShans
16:00:21 <Zakim> +GShans; got it
16:00:22 <Zakim> - +1.301.325.aagg
16:00:25 <Zakim> + +44.186.558.aahh
16:00:29 <Zakim> + +1.202.643.aaii
16:00:31 <kulick> kulick has joined #dnt
16:00:31 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
16:00:34 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
16:00:34 <AdamP> AdamP has joined #dnt
16:00:36 <eberkower> Lynn Johnson is 203
16:00:42 <hwest> Zakim, aaii is hwet
16:00:42 <Zakim> +hwet; got it
16:00:43 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #dnt
16:00:43 <moneill2> zakim, aahh is me
16:00:44 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
16:00:45 <Zakim> + +1.646.783.aajj
16:00:49 <hwest> Oops, npdoty, can you fix that?
16:00:51 <Zakim> +[Apple]
16:00:57 <Zakim> +Fielding
16:00:58 <dsinger> zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:00:58 <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
16:00:58 <npdoty> Zakim, aaff is LynnJohnson
16:00:58 <Zakim> +LynnJohnson; got it
16:01:04 <wseltzer> zakim, hwet is really hwest
16:01:04 <Zakim> +hwest; got it
16:01:05 <robsherman> robsherman has joined #dnt
16:01:10 <Zakim> + +1.303.224.aakk
16:01:20 <vinay> vinay has joined #dnt
16:01:24 <hwest> Thanks, wseltzer!
16:01:24 <Zakim> +vinay
16:01:25 <ninja> ninja has joined #dnt
16:01:29 <Zakim> + +1.650.308.aall
16:01:32 <justin> zakim, gshans is really GShans
16:01:32 <Zakim> sorry, justin, I do not recognize a party named 'gshans'
16:01:32 <robsherman> zakim, aall is robsherman
16:01:32 <Zakim> +robsherman; got it
16:01:39 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see rvaneijk, [Mozilla], Wendy, Walter, eberkower (muted), mecallahan, FPFJoeN (muted), schunter, Carl, npdoty (muted), JackHobaugh, [CDT], BerinSzoka, LynnJohnson,
16:01:42 <Zakim> ... moneill2, hwest, +1.646.783.aajj, [Apple], Fielding, +1.303.224.aakk, vinay, robsherman
16:01:42 <Zakim> [CDT] has GShans
16:01:42 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:01:42 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:01:42 <Zakim> + +44.142.864.aamm
16:01:46 <npdoty> ack npdoty
16:02:04 <sidstamm> wseltzer, does that mean zakim is tracking us? ;-)
16:02:05 <AdamP> zakim, aamm is Adamp
16:02:05 <Zakim> +Adamp; got it
16:02:06 <Zakim> + +49.431.98.aann
16:02:07 <Zakim> + +1.301.325.aaoo
16:02:10 <Zakim> + +1.408.836.aapp
16:02:18 <ninja> zakim, aann is ninja
16:02:20 <Zakim> +ninja; got it
16:02:24 <Zakim> - +1.301.325.aaoo
16:02:25 <WileyS> WileyS has joined #DNT
16:02:26 <dsinger> zakim, who is making noise?
16:02:29 <kulick> zakim, aapp is kulick
16:02:29 <Zakim> +kulick; got it
16:02:30 <Zakim> +Jeff
16:02:32 <sidstamm> wseltzer, oh good.
16:02:33 <Zakim> + +31.20.420.aaqq
16:02:36 <Zakim> dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: rvaneijk (31%), +1.303.224.aakk (13%)
16:02:48 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see rvaneijk, [Mozilla], Wendy, Walter, eberkower (muted), mecallahan, FPFJoeN (muted), schunter, Carl, npdoty, JackHobaugh, [CDT], BerinSzoka, LynnJohnson,
16:02:51 <Zakim> ... moneill2, hwest, +1.646.783.aajj, [Apple], Fielding, +1.303.224.aakk, vinay, robsherman, Adamp, ninja, kulick, Jeff, +31.20.420.aaqq
16:02:51 <Zakim> [CDT] has GShans
16:02:51 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:02:51 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:02:53 <Zakim> - +1.303.224.aakk
16:02:54 <dsinger> zakim, mute rvanejk
16:02:55 <Zakim> sorry, dsinger, I do not know which phone connection belongs to rvanejk
16:03:05 <dsinger> zakim, mute rvaneijk
16:03:05 <Zakim> rvaneijk should now be muted
16:03:07 <npdoty> Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:03:07 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Walter
16:03:08 <Zakim> +WileyS
16:03:10 <omer> omer has joined #dnt
16:03:11 <matt> matt has joined #dnt
16:03:15 <dsinger> zakim, unmute rvaneijk
16:03:15 <Zakim> rvaneijk should no longer be muted
16:03:25 <Walter> ehm, I'm on Skype
16:03:35 <jeff> Nick, I can scribe if noone else steps up.
16:03:38 <Zakim> + +1.212.231.aarr
16:03:39 <Walter> in didn't turn out too well in the past, scribing-wise
16:03:40 <Zakim> + +1.215.480.aass
16:03:46 <Zakim> -[Apple]
16:03:47 <Zakim> + +1.323.253.aatt
16:03:50 <npdoty> Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:03:50 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose +1.646.783.aajj
16:03:52 <npdoty> Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:03:52 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ninja
16:03:53 <WaltMichel> zakim, aass is me
16:03:54 <Zakim> +WaltMichel; got it
16:03:54 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
16:03:58 <Ari> Ari has joined #dnt
16:04:05 <Zakim> +[Apple]
16:04:06 <npdoty> Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:04:06 <dsinger> zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:04:06 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Fielding
16:04:06 <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
16:04:22 <Zakim> +Amy_Colando
16:04:24 <JC> JC has joined #DNT
16:04:26 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Mozilla], Wendy, Walter, eberkower (muted), mecallahan, FPFJoeN (muted), schunter, Carl, npdoty, JackHobaugh, [CDT], BerinSzoka, LynnJohnson, moneill2, hwest,
16:04:29 <Zakim> ... +1.646.783.aajj, Fielding, vinay, robsherman, Adamp, ninja, kulick, Jeff, +31.20.420.aaqq, WileyS, +1.212.231.aarr, WaltMichel, +1.323.253.aatt, [Apple], Amy_Colando
16:04:29 <Zakim> [CDT] has GShans
16:04:29 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:04:29 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:04:36 <Zakim> +hefferjr
16:04:39 <npdoty> fielding, can you scribe the second half today?
16:04:41 <Chapell> Chapell has joined #DNT
16:04:46 <ninja> scribenick: ninja
16:04:50 <npdoty> Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:04:50 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose mecallahan
16:04:56 <Zakim> +rvaneijk
16:05:03 <npdoty> mecallahan, can you scribe the second half of our call?
16:05:04 <Zakim> + +1.415.470.aauu
16:05:13 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:05:28 <ninja> schunter: This time we have 6 issues on our radar for the call.
16:05:29 <npdoty> Zakim, aaqq is kj
16:05:29 <Zakim> +kj; got it
16:05:48 <ninja> ... Introducing changes to the editors draft.
16:05:49 <Zakim> + +1.646.666.aavv
16:05:50 <dsinger> agenda at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Oct/0151.html
16:06:02 <Chapell> zakim, aavv is chapell
16:06:02 <Zakim> +chapell; got it
16:06:18 <npdoty> Zakim, drop aarr
16:06:18 <Zakim> +1.212.231.aarr is being disconnected
16:06:20 <Zakim> - +1.212.231.aarr
16:06:29 <ninja> ... under what conditions may changes be made. We introduce what we think are editorial changes.
16:06:30 <npdoty> Zakim, drop aatt
16:06:30 <Zakim> +1.323.253.aatt is being disconnected
16:06:31 <Zakim> - +1.323.253.aatt
16:06:35 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:06:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Mozilla], Wendy, Walter, eberkower (muted), mecallahan, FPFJoeN (muted), schunter, Carl, npdoty, JackHobaugh, [CDT], BerinSzoka, LynnJohnson, moneill2, hwest,
16:06:36 <carlcargill> carlcargill has joined #dnt
16:06:39 <Zakim> ... +1.646.783.aajj, Fielding, vinay, robsherman, Adamp, ninja, kulick, Jeff, kj, WileyS, WaltMichel, [Apple], Amy_Colando, hefferjr, rvaneijk, +1.415.470.aauu, [Microsoft],
16:06:39 <Zakim> ... chapell
16:06:39 <Zakim> [CDT] has GShans
16:06:39 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:06:39 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:06:43 <Ari> 323-253 is Ari
16:06:44 <Zakim> + +1.510.501.aaww
16:06:49 <ninja> ... if there is objection on the mailing list, we will revert it.
16:06:54 <npdoty> Zakim, aaww is LeeTien
16:06:54 <Zakim> +LeeTien; got it
16:07:10 <Zakim> +Chris_Pedigo
16:07:22 <Zakim> + +1.323.253.aaxx
16:07:25 <ChrisPedigoOPA> ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:07:26 <Zakim> +Susan_Israel
16:07:26 <schunter> q?
16:07:27 <Zakim> + +1.212.231.aayy
16:07:29 <npdoty> Zakim, aaxx is Ari
16:07:29 <Zakim> +Ari; got it
16:07:36 <matt> 1.212.231.aayy is matt
16:07:36 <Ari> thank you
16:07:36 <schunter> q?
16:07:40 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
16:07:43 <ninja> ... If we see clear consensus we may make these changes in addition to editorial changes.
16:07:45 <ninja> q+
16:07:47 <npdoty> Zakim, aayy is matt
16:07:47 <Zakim> +matt; got it
16:07:49 <wseltzer> zakim, pointer?
16:07:49 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, wseltzer.
16:07:51 <schunter> ack nin
16:07:51 <adrianba> zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
16:07:52 <Zakim> +adrianba; got it
16:07:55 <wseltzer> rrsagent, pointer?
16:07:55 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2013/10/09-dnt-irc#T16-07-55
16:07:57 <adrianba> zakim, mute me
16:07:57 <Zakim> adrianba should now be muted
16:08:02 <npdoty> Zakim, mute me
16:08:02 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
16:08:06 <matt> haies from 24/7
16:08:27 <jeff> Ninja: From a lawyer point of view, does changing the vocabulary cause a change of meaning?
16:08:32 <AnnaLong> AnnaLong has joined #dnt
16:08:37 <jeff> ... so you introduce changes and wait for objection?  Correct?
16:08:40 <ninja> thanks jeff
16:09:13 <npdoty> I did a bunch of changes, and then sent around a bullet point summary of them
16:09:14 <omer> 1.415.470 is omer t
16:09:17 <fielding> q+
16:09:20 <Zakim> + +1.919.388.aazz
16:09:31 <wseltzer> zakim, who is here?
16:09:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Mozilla], Wendy, Walter, eberkower (muted), mecallahan, FPFJoeN (muted), schunter, Carl, npdoty (muted), JackHobaugh, [CDT], BerinSzoka, LynnJohnson, moneill2,
16:09:32 <npdoty> and I made a change for tracking definition, which we discussed on the call
16:09:34 <schunter> q?
16:09:35 <Zakim> ... hwest, +1.646.783.aajj, Fielding, vinay, robsherman, Adamp, ninja, kulick, Jeff, kj, WileyS, WaltMichel, [Apple], Amy_Colando, hefferjr, rvaneijk, +1.415.470.aauu, [Microsoft],
16:09:35 <Zakim> ... chapell, LeeTien, Chris_Pedigo, Ari, Susan_Israel, matt, adrianba (muted), +1.919.388.aazz
16:09:35 <Zakim> [CDT] has GShans
16:09:35 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:09:35 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:09:36 <schunter> ack r
16:09:39 <AnnaLong> zakim, aazz is AnnaLong
16:09:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see AnnaLong, ChrisPedigoOPA, carlcargill, Chapell, JC, Ari, matt, omer, WileyS, ninja, vinay, robsherman, dsinger, AdamP, kulick, WaltMichel, fielding, kj, GSHans, hwest,
16:09:39 <Zakim> ... adrianba, mecallahan, justin, dwainberg, npdoty, jeff, sidstamm
16:09:39 <Zakim> +AnnaLong; got it
16:09:43 <wseltzer> zakim, aauu is omer
16:09:44 <Zakim> +omer; got it
16:09:44 <justin> zakim, aauu is omer
16:09:44 <Zakim> sorry, justin, I do not recognize a party named 'aauu'
16:09:49 <ninja> schunter: If we think it's clearly editorial we just make the change. If we missed a change in meaning, we wpould like the WG members to make objection.
16:10:05 <npdoty> ack fielding
16:10:22 <wseltzer> q+
16:10:39 <ninja> fielding: The "June Draft" itself was never authorized by the group. Therefore, whether or not it's editorial is irrelevant.
16:10:55 <dsinger> …thinks there are two issues here.  (a) does the draft have good editorial quality?  (b) does it reflect the consensus and state of the group?
16:11:00 <dsinger> q+
16:11:10 <wseltzer> ack ws
16:11:11 <schunter> ack w
16:11:25 <ninja> ... The current draft itself was never only an editorial change.
16:11:43 <samlowry> samlowry has joined #dnt
16:11:46 <Bropoks> Bropoks has joined #dnt
16:11:49 <Zakim> +??P8
16:12:01 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:12:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Mozilla], Wendy, Walter, eberkower (muted), mecallahan, FPFJoeN (muted), schunter, Carl, npdoty (muted), JackHobaugh, [CDT], BerinSzoka, LynnJohnson, moneill2,
16:12:06 <Zakim> ... hwest, +1.646.783.aajj, Fielding, vinay, robsherman, Adamp, ninja, kulick, Jeff, kj, WileyS, WaltMichel, [Apple], Amy_Colando, hefferjr, rvaneijk, omer, [Microsoft], chapell,
16:12:06 <Zakim> ... LeeTien, Chris_Pedigo, Ari, Susan_Israel, matt, adrianba (muted), AnnaLong, ??P8
16:12:06 <Zakim> [CDT] has GShans
16:12:06 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:12:06 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:12:15 <schunter> ack d
16:12:22 <BerinSzoka> BerinSzoka has joined #DNT
16:12:22 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
16:12:24 <ninja> wseltzer: We want the editor's draft to move to a status where it is reflecting what the group has reviewed and has agreed upon.
16:12:39 <npdoty> Zakim, drop aajj
16:12:39 <Zakim> +1.646.783.aajj is being disconnected
16:12:41 <Zakim> - +1.646.783.aajj
16:12:45 <Chris_IAB> Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
16:12:49 <schunter> q+
16:13:01 <Chris_IAB> npdoty, I just joined via a private number
16:13:08 <Zakim> +Brooks
16:13:10 <npdoty> Zakim, ??P8 is Chris_IAB
16:13:10 <Zakim> +Chris_IAB; got it
16:13:14 <ninja> dsinger: For me the relevant question is: is it readable and does reflect our current thinking, where there is open discussion. The draft does exactly that.
16:13:41 <ninja> schunter: The draft states that it is not consensus. Fielding, what would you like us to do?
16:13:54 <npdoty> there should be issue pointers now inline
16:14:33 <wseltzer> s/upon./upon. That means keeping a version stable except for raised issues and changes agreed upon through the group's process./
16:14:50 <justin> And this meta-discussion is stopping us from addressing the definition of tracking later in this call.
16:14:59 <ninja> fielding: We are working through definitions. Unfortunately, there are no direkt links to the wiki or the discussion. This may lead to harm for people trying to interpret the spec.
16:15:03 <npdoty> the ISSUEs in the Tracker should also all have a link to the appropriate wiki change proposal page
16:15:17 <jeff> q+ to differentiate between the "starting draft" and going forward.
16:15:24 <schunter> ack sc
16:15:24 <ninja> ... There was no need to introduce the not-consensus draft in the beginning.
16:15:27 <schunter> ack je
16:15:28 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to differentiate between the "starting draft" and going forward.
16:16:31 <justin> fielding, We said no non editorial changes were going to be made at that point.  John Simpson pointed out that it wasn't editorial.  We're going to pick a definition of tracking NOW.  The state of the editorial draft for the next week or so is a minor issue --- it's vaporware and described as such.
16:16:37 <ninja> jeff: we would like the WG to move forward.  I believe peter swire made this decision to set a starting point for going forward.
16:16:45 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
16:17:19 <ninja> ... Some old issues may be accidentally be thrown out of the window.
16:17:24 <justin> zakim, close the queue
16:17:24 <Zakim> ok, justin, the speaker queue is closed
16:17:28 <WileyS> Jeff and Nick, Does a Co-Chair have the authority to set a net new starting point for the working group?  Especially when the working group had already arrived at a different starting point?
16:17:44 <ninja> ... Apart from the open 45 issues we should allow ourselves to make editorial changes.
16:17:58 <fielding> justin, what you said was irrelevant … I can point to the minutes of when the WD was published where Matthias said this would be addressed in *this* WD
16:18:04 <ninja> ... But we need some starting point and the June Draft seems a good one.
16:18:25 <schunter> q?
16:18:35 <ninja> schunter: I will discuss this with the chairs and come back to the group with a proposal on how to move forward.
16:18:36 <justin> zakim, open the queue
16:18:36 <Zakim> ok, justin, the speaker queue is open
16:19:09 <FPFJoeN> FPFJoeN has joined #dnt
16:19:19 <ninja> carlcargill: On item 4. Testing of specification.
16:19:27 <npdoty> WileyS, I believe Peter made this assessment of the group during a call in June
16:19:31 <jeff> Shane, I'm not sure I can answer your question.  You ask whether Peter can decide on a starting point that the WG disagrees with.  I was not in the WG at the time, so I don't know if your hypothesis is correct.
16:20:39 <npdoty> Topic: Testing
16:20:47 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:20:58 <johnsimpson> q?
16:21:02 <ninja> ... The compliance spec is very difficult to validate, bacause there are few "hard" test points.
16:21:19 <WileyS> Nick and Jeff, I was in those meetings and it was stated without an option for objection.  To further the position, Peter then setup a call for Objections between the Industry and Swire/Staff/June Draft - never mentioning the existing document we already had in place.
16:21:52 <ninja> ... The proof of the specification is the ability of the providers to implement and for the users to understand.
16:22:32 <Brooks> How can you have a spec that is vague and ambivalent and testable?
16:22:36 <ninja> ... Those are the criteria: Will we be able to implement it without breaking something
16:22:40 <dwainberg> What does it mean for implementers to be "able" to implement?
16:22:46 <Zakim> +johnsimpson
16:22:53 <dwainberg> Is that able at all? Or able without going out of business?
16:23:05 <ninja> ... User understanding and common practices also need to be taken into account.
16:23:11 <schunter> 4q?
16:23:13 <schunter> q?
16:23:18 <dsinger> q?
16:23:31 <dsinger> q+
16:23:46 <ninja> dwainberg: What does being "able to implement" mean.
16:24:05 <Brooks> industry or company?  or what percent of industry?
16:24:31 <ninja> carlcargill: If the business dies because of the spec, we have failed because noone will implement it.
16:24:34 <dwainberg> And what about collateral effects on the Internet ecosystem?
16:24:39 <npdoty> that sounds like a test just based on adoption, rather than external or automated testing
16:24:55 <justin> brooks dwainberg, I think those are absolutely considerations as well.
16:25:00 <ninja> ... What keeps a recommendation alive are the people who implement it
16:25:00 <dwainberg> there are 3rd party beneficiaries to third party advertising, namely publishers
16:25:07 <schunter> q?
16:25:08 <dsinger> q?
16:25:10 <schunter> ack d
16:25:15 <Brooks> then they must be testable
16:25:25 <moneill2> what if not implementing craters an industry?
16:25:34 <ninja> dsinger: We went from testability to implementability
16:25:40 <adrianba> q+
16:25:59 <ninja> ... The TPE spec should be able to be testable with reasonable efforts.
16:26:31 <JackHobaugh> Carl, can you explain what you mean by "vague and ambivalent" regarding the spec?
16:26:42 <ninja> ... On the Compliance spec: This addresses the internal data handling
16:26:57 <npdoty> if people are curious about scripts for aiding in Tk header testing (as mentioned by dsinger), you can see some simple code here: https://github.com/npdoty/dnt-test
16:27:05 <ninja> .. Maybe it can be only tested by regulators and enforcement authorities.
16:27:12 <Brooks> which regulators?
16:27:21 <ninja> ... I agree it's not directly testable.
16:27:41 <npdoty> dsinger, you mean *externally* testable, right?
16:28:26 <Walter> +1 on dsinger
16:28:32 <ninja> carlcargill: Courts and regulations are not valid testers for a recommendation. We will not have a proof and just rely on good will and honesty.
16:28:35 <Walter> the recourse will vary per jurisdiction
16:28:45 <schunter> q?
16:28:48 <dwainberg> now you're talking about testing for compliance
16:28:52 <adrianba> ack adr
16:28:52 <schunter> ack ad
16:29:07 <johnsimpson> q?
16:29:13 <Walter> +q
16:29:19 <sidstamm> recourse for any spec non-compliance is "complain that party X is not compliant"...
16:29:21 <dwainberg> that's different from testing against our criteria for what we want it to do, and for limiting collateral breakage
16:31:06 <schunter> q?
16:31:14 <ninja> adrianba: The compliance spec is largely about policy. When we walk through the remaining issues we need to pay attention to removing all ambiguities.
16:31:18 <adrianba> zakim, mute me
16:31:18 <Zakim> adrianba should now be muted
16:31:27 <Zakim> -Ari
16:31:41 <Zakim> +Ari
16:32:08 <dwainberg> sidstamm, This isn't about testing compliance. It's about testing against the criteria for what the spec should or should not accomplish.
16:32:12 <dsinger> q+
16:32:50 <npdoty> dwainberg, I think Carl is also referring to testing compliance, which is why sid is responding to that
16:32:56 <ninja> carlcargill: If we do not have valid test points, we have a nice to have spec that is not enforcable. How do we resolve this?
16:33:25 <johnsimpson> that's like most of the WG's discussions...
16:33:29 <dwainberg> Thanks, Nick. I'm handicapped not being on the phone.
16:33:33 <npdoty> q?
16:33:57 <ninja> ... As a chair I would like to have a conclusion on how to move forward and provide initial ideas to find "hard" and validatable testing points in the compliance spec.
16:33:59 <sidstamm> dwainberg, npdoty was right.
16:34:14 <schunter> q?
16:34:20 <justin> zakim, close the queue
16:34:20 <Zakim> ok, justin, the speaker queue is closed
16:34:22 <schunter> ack Wal
16:34:30 <ninja> schunter: Let's take this to the list.
16:35:19 <ninja> Walter: Not familiar with other testing of standards. But we should not worry too much about the "semi-legal" compliance spec
16:35:27 <schunter> q?
16:35:35 <schunter> ack dsin
16:35:41 <ninja> ... it is enforcable by contract and compliance lawyers and DPAs.
16:35:56 <dwainberg> ok, sid; sorry to jump on you for that.
16:36:19 <ninja> dsinger: I agree we should not ambiguous text, where the provider cannot assess whether or not he is compliant.
16:36:20 <npdoty> dwainberg, I think you were referring to "success criteria" for the group as a whole, which might be a useful term in distinguishing the discussions
16:36:38 <schunter> q?
16:37:03 <ninja> ... But to verify this yourself may be enough with regard to testability.
16:37:03 <justin> zakim, open the queue
16:37:03 <Zakim> ok, justin, the speaker queue is open
16:37:09 <dsinger> issue-10?
16:37:09 <trackbot> issue-10 -- What is a first party? -- open
16:37:09 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/10
16:37:14 <justin> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Party_Definitions
16:37:19 <npdoty> I believe going forward Carl is offering to manage a discussion going forward on a testing/testability strategy
16:37:23 <npdoty> Topic: Issues
16:37:24 <hefferjr> hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:37:28 <ninja> justin: Status Update on Issue 10
16:37:41 <WileyS> 15 mins?  I thought we were moving to a single issue per week - should we give them more time?  Or is this just the prep and we'll focus on a single issue next week?
16:37:45 <dwainberg> yes, Nick, if by that we mean measuring against what we want and don't want the spec to accomplish.
16:38:38 <ninja> ... explaing changes and rationales.
16:39:08 <npdoty> WileyS, I think the chairs want to give a heads-up or a chance for discussion on issues that aren't as far along in the milestones
16:39:09 <fielding> referring to proposal 4
16:39:48 <BrianH> BrianH has joined #dnt
16:39:54 <fielding> bunnies (I included rationale in this wiki document to avoid confusion)
16:39:57 <robsherman> q+
16:40:02 <ninja> Lee: The thing I wanted to clarify about the multiple first party issue:
16:40:26 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
16:40:33 <ninja> ... Google search example. I click on a Wikipedia article that comes up in the search.
16:40:43 <fielding> q+
16:40:52 <ninja> ... I would not consider Google a first party in this example
16:41:05 <WileyS> Nick, it would be helpful to setup a calendar out a few months with an issue map per meeting - is this planned?
16:41:11 <justin> ack rob
16:41:31 <WileyS> Click Redirection should be a separate category
16:41:38 <johnsimpson> q?
16:41:39 <Zakim> + +1.202.347.bbaa
16:41:47 <ninja> fielding: The multiple first parties as I see it is different from that
16:41:52 <BrianH> zakim 202 347 is BrianH
16:41:57 <npdoty> WileyS, I think the chairs were using the agendas for that, but a calendar plan view might be helpful /cc wseltzer
16:42:05 <ninja> ... More like an entire website provided by two parties.
16:42:08 <npdoty> Zakim, bbaa is BrianH
16:42:08 <Zakim> +BrianH; got it
16:42:12 <fielding> I am not speaking
16:42:31 <npdoty> s/fielding:/robsherman:/
16:43:01 <ninja> ... justin and I have tried to make the wording more clear on this.
16:43:47 <johnsimpson> q+
16:44:01 <ninja> justin: The original text was designed for the shared website example. We probably have to work on new text for the google example.
16:44:10 <npdoty> it's part of fielding's rationale and example, though I'm not sure it's actually explicit in his proposed text change
16:44:37 <justin> ack roy
16:44:39 <justin> ack fie
16:44:55 <ninja> do we have a second scribe who could take over?
16:45:22 <robsherman> q+
16:45:24 <npdoty> Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:45:25 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose FPFJoeN (muted)
16:45:47 <FPFJoeN> sorry, can't
16:45:51 <npdoty> Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:45:51 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose hefferjr
16:46:11 <justin> Well, Google would still be able to use search terms under Lee's perspective.
16:46:20 <jeff> Nick, doyou need me to scribe?
16:46:28 <robsherman> q-
16:47:06 <npdoty> scribenick: jeff
16:47:39 <justin> ack john
16:48:00 <jeff> JohnS: ED language defines "party" and discusses affiliates
16:48:12 <jeff> ... Does Roy's proposed language deal with affiliates?
16:48:31 <jeff> ... Oh, that's proposal 3; then proposal 4 is first party.
16:48:36 <dsinger> …thinks we need to work through the Google example.  If I go to Google and search and they present results, they are the first party.  I click a link on their results page, they are the first party for that click, and the destination becomes a first party once I visit it.  can we detail a different example which is problematic, because this doesn't seem to be
16:48:46 <jeff> Roy: Yes, 3 is party; 4 is 1st; and 5 is 3rd.
16:48:49 <npdoty> Lee: when I think about the consumer, I don't think the user expects to interact with Google when clicking on a search result, and maybe I would be outvoted/alone in that expectation
16:49:04 <jeff> Justin: Does anyone like existing ED over Roy's reformulation?
16:49:10 <robsherman> To be clear, Roy isn't proposing to eliminate multiple first party language, right?
16:49:13 <jeff> ... you can also register opinions on list.
16:49:32 <jeff> ... Alan's proposal has gotten discussion on list.
16:49:41 <jeff> ... Roy/ED and Alan's are quite different
16:49:50 <fielding> robsherman, right -- see second para of proposal 4
16:49:53 <jeff> ... parties based on privacy practices and contracts.
16:49:57 <jeff> ... Alan?
16:50:21 <jeff> Alan: Clarification; it's not that ownership and branding are insufficient
16:50:32 <jeff> ... or contractural relationships are worse
16:50:34 <npdoty> I don't think I have Alan's proposal on the wiki page with the other proposals; is there a crisp change proposal we should add to that?
16:50:41 <jeff> ... it's either / or
16:50:51 <WileyS> Legal liability is the key
16:50:56 <jeff> ... struggline to decide which is better
16:51:00 <Zakim> -moneill2
16:51:06 <jeff> JB: Let's take it to the list.
16:51:11 <jeff> ... We'll need CfO
16:51:19 <jeff> ... Also, separately, Lee's concerns
16:51:20 <WileyS> 20 distributed companies can argue liability amongst them whereas a single legal entity that owns another entity cannot
16:51:33 <Walter> WileyS: +1
16:51:36 <Zakim> +moneill2
16:51:37 <fielding> well, the compelling reason is that regulations are applied by party (by owner/controller)
16:51:38 <jeff> ... Either convergence on list or CfO
16:51:47 <jeff> ... close discussion on this issue.
16:51:50 <npdoty> will add Alan's text http://www.w3.org/mid/CE79B7D8.3ACC4%25achapell@chapellassociates.com to the ISSUE-10 list as a separate change proposal
16:51:55 <Chapell> Shane, can you help me understand your point re: "legal liability" and how that applies to DNT?
16:51:57 <jeff> MS: Issue-5 - definition of tracking
16:52:04 <jeff> ... final week
16:52:05 <npdoty> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Tracking_Definition
16:52:16 <JackHobaugh> Justin, what do you see as the duration for Phase M2 on Issue-10?
16:52:17 <jeff> ... goal to converge on consensus opinion by next call
16:52:26 <jeff> ... lucky if successful otherwise CfO
16:52:40 <jeff> ... 5 definitions: Roy, David, Rob, @@, @@
16:52:45 <WileyS> Alan, the definition of a 1st party - common ownership & control are different than contractual relationships alone due to the way legal liability is handled.
16:52:57 <jeff> ... How can we best find out if one can be modified to result in a converged position.
16:53:01 <dsinger> q+
16:53:04 <jeff> ... Straw poll.  Objections?
16:53:17 <jeff> ack da
16:53:18 <justin> jackhorbaugh, We'll spend a week discussing ISSUE-10 on the list to see if consensus emerges, otherwise we will start a Call for Objections on ISSUE-10 next week (assuming the group is continuing its work).
16:53:23 <npdoty> ack dsinger
16:53:35 <jeff> David: I don't understand "multiple parties" or "cross-site"
16:53:47 <jeff> ... for a single site am I tracking or not is key
16:53:52 <fielding> "Tracking is the act of following a particular user's browsing activity across multiple distinct contexts"
16:53:54 <jeff> ... so I need clarification discussion
16:53:59 <jeff> MS: What's your question?
16:54:00 <Chapell> WileyS, thanks for your answer. But you haven't answered the essential question --- how is "ownership" better for privacy? Isn't privacy the point of this group?
16:54:07 <npdoty> fielding or justin, can you refer to "multiple parties' domains or services"?
16:54:14 <JackHobaugh> Justin, Thanks for the clarification.
16:54:19 <jeff> DS: Im Roy's I have "across contexts", etc.
16:54:34 <jeff> ... Is Roy saying can't relate to other domains?
16:54:43 <jeff> Roy: No, you have a false premise.
16:54:53 <jeff> ... "you need to know as a single site if you are tracking".
16:55:00 <jeff> ... doesn't apply to compliance doc
16:55:07 <jeff> ... multiple interactions over time
16:55:09 <justin> npdoty, Can you elaborate?  Sorry, haven't been following irc as closely as I would like.
16:55:15 <npdoty> via the TPE, you potentially need to give a response on every request
16:55:15 <Chapell> Focusing on "ownership" isn't helpful from a privacy standpoint, and encourages situations where
16:55:17 <WileyS> Alan, I believe you're overstating the situation and issue.  of course this group is focused on consumer privacy but we also operate in the real-world where concepts of corporations/1st parties are largely legal matters and are already defined.
16:55:36 <jeff> ... understand desire for a "per interaction"; but user desire is to turn off "across multiple sites"
16:55:41 <ninja> fielding: could you specify what qualifies as a "context"?
16:55:52 <jeff> ... could be single domain (unlikely); multiple brands (more likely)
16:56:06 <jeff> ... or multiple parties (shared ownership) is up for debate
16:56:13 <johnsimpson> Q?
16:56:31 <Chapell> Focusing on "ownership" isn't helpful from a privacy standpoint, and encourages situations where large entities are incented to buy 'networks' of sites
16:56:45 <jeff> MS: Purpose is to give language in intro setting context
16:56:46 <Chapell> .... http://newscorp.com/2013/08/21/news-corp-to-launch-global-programmatic-advertising-exchange/
16:56:55 <Walter> Chapell: isn't this what the SAME-SITE flag is about?
16:56:58 <WileyS> Small sites can merge into a single legal entity as well if they like
16:56:58 <jeff> ... so agree w Roy
16:57:02 <Walter> eh, SAME-PARTY
16:57:06 <jeff> ... later we need implementation details
16:57:09 <Walter> for contractual relations?
16:57:18 <jeff> ... rules to implement "not-tracking"
16:57:21 <dwainberg> Shane, contracts are also real-world concepts that are legal matters and well-defined.
16:57:37 <WileyS> True - but they don't represent 1st parties (the focus of this discussion)
16:57:39 <kulick> FWIW: cross site or affiliate relationships or affiliate sites are used in other texts that govern data collection or use
16:57:42 <jeff> David: Disagree; channel Carl
16:57:48 <jeff> ... DNT comes in HTTP request
16:57:57 <dwainberg> Requiring small sites to merge into a single legal entity is unreasonable and, again, provides no privacy benefit on its own.
16:57:58 <jeff> ... what happens in response to that request
16:58:05 <jeff> [metaphor about shouting]
16:58:20 <Chapell> WileyS - in most contracts I've seen that addres ad serving, liability is pretty well defined
16:58:36 <WileyS> David, this doesn't require that - only if those individual legal entities would like to be represented as a single legal entity would they need to do this.
16:58:37 <dwainberg> I don't care whether you call it 1st party or affiliate or whatever ...
16:58:38 <Chapell> Walter: I'm not sure
16:58:41 <jeff> Roy: Recipient is entity controlling 1st or 3rd party resource
16:58:47 <jeff> ... not at the level at HTTP server
16:59:02 <kulick> If I look directly at you and tell you to stop shouting at me then you know I am talking directly to you... that is opt-out, not DNT
16:59:13 <npdoty> I think fielding is saying, you know if you're *going to* combine with data from other sites
16:59:18 <dwainberg> It's not about being represented as a single legal entity; it's about a data protection regime across sites.
16:59:22 <jeff> [Restatement of respective positions by David and Roy]
16:59:26 <Zakim> -WaltMichel
16:59:27 <WileyS> Alan, liability and indemnity are often the most argued points in contracts - so while I agree there is an infrastructure to discuss them - they are not agreed upon and often requrie case-by-case reviews by courts to determine what was "right"
16:59:39 <johnsimpson> q?
16:59:45 <Chapell> .... and by focusing solely on ownership, we are simply creating incentives for consolidation --- an issue that this group has time and again refused to consider
17:00:14 <npdoty> ack npdoty
17:00:19 <jeff> David: I agree that if we can find the right multiparty defn makes it much easier
17:00:26 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
17:00:26 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
17:00:27 <jeff> ... but need to be more crisp
17:00:27 <WileyS> David, this is about 1st parties and how they are different than 3rd parties.  I understand you and Alan represent companies that are deemed strict 3rd parties and are looking for ways to change this most basic understanding but I don't beleive your approach is reasonable.
17:00:36 <jeff> MS: Survey of definitions.
17:00:44 <jeff> ... David doesn't want multi-party
17:00:45 <Chapell> ShaneW - when has Y! agreed to indemnify a smaller AdTech company  (:
17:00:52 <schunter> q?
17:00:57 <johnsimpson> q?
17:01:08 <justin> No.
17:01:10 <jeff> @@: Roy is context definition depend on party definition
17:01:11 <dwainberg> Shane, you still haven't explained how ownership on its own provides better privacy that can be had via contract.
17:01:12 <dsinger> no, I want it to be clear what it means by "multiple".  It's push-back on clarity.  Once I get clarity, I might not push-back on the definition...
17:01:18 <jeff> Roy: right now independent.
17:01:19 <WileyS> Alan - we do all the time - depends on the specific nature of the relationship, what we are representing, and what indemnities follow.
17:01:30 <schunter> David: Could you propose re-wording to clarify?
17:01:44 <WileyS> David, that's not the question - the question is what is a 1st party.
17:01:47 <Zakim> + +1.619.846.bbbb
17:01:51 <hober> Zakim, bbbb is me
17:01:51 <Zakim> +hober; got it
17:01:53 <jeff> ... but my concern here is limited to defn of tracking
17:02:01 <jeff> MS: Other concerns?
17:02:09 <dwainberg> That's a question, but not /the/ question :)
17:02:20 <fielding> s/@@/ninja/
17:02:21 <jeff> David: It is too long.
17:02:26 <WileyS> David, LOL
17:02:30 <npdoty> ack npdoty
17:02:33 <jeff> MS: That should be our worst problem ;)
17:02:35 <schunter> ack np
17:02:44 <Chapell> WileyS - your concern re: liability can be mostly addressed contractually.... can you say the same re: "ownership" vs "contract" addressing the privacy concerns I am raising?
17:02:47 <fielding> I'd rather be long than misleading
17:02:50 <jeff> NPD: "Following" is not defined.
17:02:51 <dsinger> I could certainly research the 'tunnel vision' approach and re-phrase it in more precise/modern language
17:02:52 <ninja> +1 to nick
17:02:59 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
17:02:59 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
17:03:04 <jeff> MS: Proposal 2 - no definition at all
17:03:07 <jeff> ... Concerns?
17:03:11 <dsinger> (2) is building castles in the air.
17:03:12 <vinay> do we still consider change proposals from people not within the WG?
17:03:14 <jeff> @@: Horrible
17:03:19 <jeff> @@@:Silly
17:03:21 <vinay> does anyone left within the WG still support this proposal?
17:03:29 <justin> We're talking primarily about a scope section now.  So (2) basically means no scope section :(
17:03:29 <sidstamm> agree with dsinger
17:03:40 <WileyS> Alan, I believe I've addressed how libiliaty is "slippery" in a contractual relationship whereas in a strict corporate structure it is rigid (forced by tax law mostly)
17:03:48 <jeff> @@@@: couldn't here
17:03:58 <jeff> MS: It seems that most don't agree on this.
17:04:09 <ninja> I think to support jeff in scribing we should go back to using the queue
17:04:12 <jeff> Lee: EFF always thought that the document would define tracking
17:04:12 <schunter> Rob said: Not agreeing on a definition would speed things up.
17:04:15 <Chapell> WileyS, but you haven't address the privacy issue - which is more than just "slippery"
17:04:15 <npdoty> ack npdoty
17:04:17 <justin> I think the last speaker was Walter agreeing there should be a definition of tracking.
17:04:18 <Zakim> -robsherman
17:04:33 <jeff> NPD: So does EFF support option 2 (no def)
17:04:35 <jeff> Lee: Yes
17:04:52 <justin> To be clear, I previously didn't see a need for a definition, but I do think we should have a scope section that identifies what we're trying to address . . .
17:04:52 <dwainberg> Shane, that can be addressed, and has only a tangential relationship to the privacy question.
17:05:05 <robsherman1> robsherman1 has joined #dnt
17:05:08 <jeff> ... you end up doing the entire WG effort in microcosm
17:05:20 <jeff> ... so just do the work in the doc; not at the definition.
17:05:21 <npdoty> Zakim, mute me
17:05:21 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
17:05:45 <jeff> John: If doc says what to do w DNT=1; you don't need defn of tracking
17:05:48 <dwainberg> Moreover, Shane, I don't think you can disclaim liability for a Section V matter :)
17:05:51 <BerinSzoka> Uh, are we going to have time to discuss the poll results? That seems rather important, especially given that the preferred option with the strongest support was to stop work
17:05:53 <WileyS> Alan - the "privacy" question is fairly broad in this context - "what is better for consumer privacy?" is a key theme in many books so its hard for me to quickly address your question here.  I've instead focused on the core need here and that is what is the definition of a 1st party and I've reflected the real-world view of that that means.  All of the trade associations you belong to uphold this
17:05:53 <WileyS> definition as well, correct?
17:05:56 <jeff> ... but willing to explore appropriate def of tracking
17:06:06 <jeff> MS: Could put as non-normative text
17:06:09 <dwainberg> Maybe you could get indemnity from someone to pay your lawyers, but you'll still need to deal with the FTC
17:06:10 <dsinger> "In rough terms, tracking is …"
17:06:20 <jeff> +1 to MS
17:06:30 <npdoty> BerinSzoka, I'll be sure to remind the group at the end of the call that today is the day to submit poll responses.
17:06:41 <WileyS> "Tracking" is needed as normative
17:06:49 <justin> (On previous calls, there has been broad consensus that this could be put in a scope section.)
17:06:51 <fielding> We are talking about a user preference protocol.  It is normative for TPE.
17:06:51 <JackHobaugh> Berin, the poll is still open for voting.
17:06:59 <rvaneijk> I agree with matthias on just setting the stage
17:07:00 <justin> q?
17:07:00 <jeff> @@: Not sure that we should go for long on this for now.
17:07:01 <WileyS> How can you have a "Do Not Track" working group and not define "Track"???
17:07:05 <Chapell> WileyS - if you need more time to adress the "privacy" question, then I invite you to take a few days and respond on list.
17:07:17 <jeff> MS: OK, we'll do CfO
17:07:19 <justin> s/@@/Walter
17:07:24 <Zakim> -Ari
17:07:26 <Brooks>  Do something with it - like write a spec around it?
17:07:34 <johnsimpson> On the poll:  Are all WG members meant to respond or should only one per on from each entity?
17:07:37 <jeff> MS: Comments on other proposals
17:07:47 <Chapell> WileyS - but to be clear, it doesn't seem like you have an answer at this time.
17:07:47 <jeff> Walter?: Like Roy's last proposal best
17:07:53 <WileyS> Alan, I believe I've answered well enough.  Please refer to the trade associations you and the companies you represent for their definition of 1st party for further clarification.
17:08:00 <jeff> MS: So, proposal 5
17:08:04 <npdoty> I'm a +1 for Proposal 5, it seems to satisfy a lot of people
17:08:14 <jeff> Walter?: If we can address DS concerns, we are pretty close
17:08:14 <dsinger> I agree we are close
17:08:27 <jeff> ... could get consensus
17:08:32 <jeff> MS: Anyone not like defn 5
17:08:34 <dsinger> q+
17:08:37 <johnsimpson> I don't like multiple domains
17:08:38 <npdoty> any objections to Proposal 5?
17:08:39 <schunter> Tracking is the collection of data across multiple parties'  domains or services and retention of that data in a form that remains  attributable to a specific user, user agent, or device.
17:08:46 <npdoty> 5: "Tracking is the collection of data across multiple parties' domains or services and retention of that data in a form that remains attributable to a specific user, user agent, or device."
17:08:46 <jeff> ... [MS reads defn 5]
17:08:47 <justin> I think Proposal 5 is based on what I wrote up based on our discussions in Cambridge (Roy has fixed the grammar).
17:09:00 <jeff> David: In proposal 3, I also try to make clear when "tracking" starts
17:09:01 <fielding> Note that proposal 5 does refer to the specific definition of party.
17:09:11 <jeff> ... (after receipt and response to HTTP request)
17:09:24 <jeff> ... although prop 3 has other problems
17:09:32 <jeff> ... prop 5 lacks this temporal nature
17:09:42 <Chapell> ShaneW - i don't believe that the practice of the W3C is to simply take all the definitions of the industry trade associations. If it were, this WG would likely have completed its work already
17:09:45 <jeff> ... but we can work this out.
17:09:45 <fielding> temporal is addressed by definition of retain?
17:09:54 <jeff> q+
17:09:56 <npdoty> fielding, would you accept a "retain after a network interaction" for Proposal 5?
17:09:58 <dsinger> q-
17:10:01 <jeff> ack ds
17:10:03 <jeff> q-
17:10:09 <fielding> npdoty, no, see definition of retain
17:10:11 <dsinger> could be that retain defines the temporal;  we need to check
17:10:24 <johnsimpson> What about proposal FOUR??????
17:10:27 <jeff> MS: So I will propose prop 5, ask for proposed improvements until we have something good enough
17:10:28 <jeff> All: Sounds good
17:10:35 <npdoty> ack npdoty
17:10:38 <jeff> MS: Close issue-5 for today's agendum
17:10:41 <Chapell> WileyS - but to be clear, you have been unable to articulate an answer for why ownership is better for privacy
17:10:42 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
17:10:42 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
17:10:44 <jeff> MS: Issues 24, 25
17:10:53 <jeff> ... Initial CPs have arrived
17:10:58 <jeff> ... need to converge
17:11:00 <WileyS> Alan, I understand why you're attempting to alter the playing field in this venue but I don't believe you'll be successful trying to bend the established rules by trying to play this against broad, overly subjective questions of "what is best for consumer privacy?" as there are pros/cons in either direction in that context.
17:11:04 <Zakim> -omer
17:11:14 <jeff> ... Carl can review the CPs.
17:11:21 <jeff> Carl: I need more than 5 minutes
17:11:24 <ninja> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Security
17:11:26 <jeff> ... I'm a standards person
17:11:31 <npdoty> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Security
17:11:31 <Chapell> WileyS.... and those pros/cons are....?
17:11:43 <jeff> ... Issue 24: security defn; graduated response; normative and non-normative
17:11:46 <Zakim> +robsherman
17:12:00 <jeff> ... Chris malicious, nefarious, and disengenuous
17:12:03 <jeff> ... CP
17:12:08 <jeff> ... Discussion
17:12:14 <jeff> ... 2nd proposal from John
17:12:18 <WileyS> Alan, established definitions, legal liability structures, consumer expectations
17:12:19 <jeff> ... new text for 5 3 3
17:12:26 <jeff> ... final proposal from Lee
17:12:31 <Chris_IAB> Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
17:12:35 <Chapell> WileyS - I'm not here to alter the playing field, I'm simply asking a very reasonable question. IF we're going to have a discxussion about the playing field, I'll point to the number of places where this standard has significant anti-competitive implications
17:12:38 <jeff> ... replacing 5.3 and removing 2.1.1 and 5.3.3.1
17:12:42 <jeff> ... 4 proposals right now
17:13:06 <Zakim> -kulick
17:13:10 <jeff> ... Roy's initial doc was questioned by Chris; John rewrote it; and Lee proposed new text
17:13:11 <Chapell> WileyS - Due respect, none of those resonses are responsive...
17:13:16 <Chris_IAB> I'm ok with Roy's proposal
17:13:18 <jeff> ... ? - any agreement?
17:13:32 <fielding> has anyone proposed to keep the current text? if not, that means 3 proposals ;-)
17:13:34 <WileyS> Alan - With due respect, they are - not sure what you're trying to get at here.
17:13:39 <justin> Thanks, Chris_IAB!
17:13:43 <jeff> ... Please look through proposals and try to converge
17:13:44 <Chapell> WileyS - estabilished definitions -- just because a definition was used in one context doesn't necessarily mean that it should be used in all contexts
17:13:51 <jeff> ... Do primaries have comments?
17:14:08 <jeff> Chris: I'm OK w Roy - he provided an amendment to original text
17:14:19 <WileyS> Alan - In "all" contexts to date.  Self-regulatory, COPPA, CALOPPA.  Please stop this.
17:14:19 <jeff> ... remove friction
17:14:31 <Zakim> +kulick
17:14:32 <npdoty> any others who want to maintain Chris's text, or should we just continue with Roy/John?
17:14:42 <npdoty> ack npdoty
17:14:44 <fielding> proposal 2
17:14:46 <WileyS> I need to see this before I can sign-off - link?
17:14:48 <jeff> John: Where is Roy's text in wiki?
17:14:54 <jeff> Roy: Proposal 2 in wiki
17:14:58 <vinay> i believe John edited/tweaked John's language
17:15:00 <fielding> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Security#Proposal_.282.29:_Add_retention_for_prosecution.2C_but_exclude_from_operational_use
17:15:06 <eberkower> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Security
17:15:09 <jeff> John: I think that is Roy and me.
17:15:09 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
17:15:09 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
17:15:13 <jeff> Roy: +1
17:15:21 <Chapell> WileyS - "consumer expectations" --- does a network consisting of WashingPost and Amazon meet consumer expectations? Does a network composed of NewCorp companies meet consumer expectations as a single entity?
17:15:22 <jeff> John: Me too
17:15:36 <jeff> Carl: 3  out of 4 agree.  Lee, what about you?
17:15:41 <justin> Is anyone uncomfortable with 2?  Graduated response is not explicitly called out FWIW.
17:15:42 <jeff> Lee: Give me a minute.
17:16:00 <Walter> q+
17:16:05 <justin> s/Lee/ChrisIAB
17:16:11 <jeff> Roy: John did not change my text; just pulled in the discussion with Chris.
17:16:36 <jeff> Lee: I can't look at it at the moment.
17:16:42 <npdoty> q?
17:16:43 <jeff> Carl: We will assume closure
17:16:46 <WileyS> Not closed - 2 weeks to consider
17:16:47 <npdoty> ack Walter
17:16:51 <justin> ack walter
17:16:52 <schunter> q?
17:17:04 <justin> WileyS, closed for the call :)
17:17:06 <jeff> Walter: Don't see disagreement on substance
17:17:16 <jeff> ... can improve exposition
17:17:16 <WileyS> Justin, okay :-)
17:17:16 <schunter> I agree with Shane: It may be a candidate for being closed (to be validated by email).
17:17:20 <jeff> ... hence no preference
17:17:46 <jeff> @@: Perhaps no substantive difference.
17:17:49 <justin> (I agree, there hasn't been a lot of real substantive disagreement on this issue for some time!)
17:17:58 <jeff> @@@@: John/Roy's text looks fine.
17:18:02 <npdoty> s/@@/Lee/
17:18:05 <jeff> ... Lee what did you add?
17:18:08 <npdoty> s/@@@@/Chris_IAB/
17:18:10 <jeff> Lee: I need to get to my computer
17:18:19 <justin> We have a week to develop the consensus on the list.
17:18:29 <jeff> MS: Let's take apparent consensus text; send to the list; see if there are objections.
17:18:37 <WileyS> Alan, If Amazon intends to share data between the organizations and they appropriately give notice of this within the Washington Post and Amazon Privacy Policies, then yes.
17:18:45 <justin> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Audience_Measurement
17:18:50 <jeff> Carl: Apparent consensus on John/Roy/Chris; Lee to look at other people to comment
17:18:55 <dsinger> "provided that such data is not used for operational behavior (profiling or personalization)"
17:18:56 <justin> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/25
17:19:09 <jeff> David: unnecessary phrase above.
17:19:14 <johnsimpson> Question on the poll:  Are all WG members expected to respond?  Or just one person per entity they represent?
17:19:18 <Walter> dsinger: I think for all texts there, there is room for improvement in the brevity department
17:19:20 <jeff> CC: David, put in email.
17:19:25 <jeff> MS: Issue-25
17:19:41 <jeff> Justin: Not a lot of discussion
17:19:49 <npdoty> johnsimpson, every participant is invited to respond
17:20:00 <jeff> ... only change proposals from Mike O'Neill and Lee saying "no"
17:20:09 <jeff> ... also need for extra opt out
17:20:12 <Zakim> + +1.917.318.bbcc
17:20:15 <Zakim> -chapell
17:20:20 <jeff> ... fundamental disagreement will not be solved in 5 minutes
17:20:27 <jeff> ... Rob Sherman had two suggestions
17:20:28 <Chapell> zakim, bbcc is chapell
17:20:28 <Zakim> +chapell; got it
17:20:37 <jeff> ... Editorial change resolved on list
17:20:49 <jeff> ... Remove last phrase (independent certification process)
17:20:58 <Zakim> -mecallahan
17:21:04 <Walter> q+
17:21:08 <jeff> ... Rob/CathyJoe - agreement? Non-normative
17:21:08 <npdoty> kj, are you comfortable with Rob's suggestion?
17:21:15 <jeff> CJ: Agree to non-normative
17:21:18 <jeff> JB: Great
17:21:21 <jeff> Walter:
17:21:21 <justin> ack walter
17:21:41 <jeff> Walter: permitted use and non-normative; confusing
17:21:45 <johnsimpson> q?
17:21:57 <jeff> ... prefer different state than permitted use
17:21:58 <npdoty> I think it wouldn't be the whole permitted use as non-normative, just the section about an approving authority
17:22:17 <jeff> ... might be incompatible w @@ framework
17:22:26 <Chris_IAB> am I the only one having a hard time hearing/understanding Walter (audio quality)?
17:22:27 <jeff> ... but least objectionable form of tracking
17:22:36 <jeff> JB: Similar to Mike's comment
17:22:37 <npdoty> s/@@/data protection/
17:22:40 <jeff> ... will update wiki
17:22:48 <jeff> ... also Rigo's comment
17:23:00 <jeff> ... so "no new dedicated permitted use"
17:23:13 <jeff> Walter: Permitted use should be those that are acceptable
17:23:20 <jeff> ... this might not be acceptable
17:23:27 <jeff> ... discuss off-call
17:23:35 <jeff> ... how to understand non-normative permitted use
17:23:47 <jeff> Justin: There would be some normative reqts
17:24:02 <jeff> ... non-normative is "subject to independent cert"
17:24:22 <npdoty> robsherman, kj, was that a correct description of the non-normative proposal?
17:24:25 <jeff> ... will continue discussion on list
17:24:26 <npdoty> ... the wiki is a little ambiguous
17:24:27 <johnsimpson> Right, it should not be a permitted use
17:24:46 <Chris_IAB> Justin, are those people who object on today's call?
17:24:53 <jeff> MS: Two new issues
17:24:58 <jeff> ... 170 and 16
17:25:09 <jeff> ... start discussing and submit CPs
17:25:14 <jeff> ... we need final list of CPs
17:25:18 <jeff> ... start look for merging
17:25:23 <fielding> ninja, regarding definition of context in my tracking proposal, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/0454.html
17:25:26 <npdoty> Chris_IAB, Lee is on the call, and johnsimpson responded in IRC (regarding not wanting a permitted use)
17:25:30 <Zakim> -Susan_Israel
17:25:33 <robsherman> npdoty - yes, the proposal is not to make the entire permitted use non-normative but to make the trade association auditing requirement non-normative; essentially a recommendation that companies making use of that permitted use may consider that framework but it wouldn't be a normative requirement to fall within the permitted use
17:25:38 <jeff> ... 170: limitations on data @@ by first parties
17:25:48 <justin> Chris_IAB, yes, moneill2, walter, johnsimpson, lee, rvaneijk (possibly?)
17:25:50 <npdoty> s/@@/append/
17:25:56 <jeff> ... 16: collect, retain, share data; definition?
17:26:02 <Chris_IAB> npdoty, thanks-- would have been good to hear what specifically they were objecting to, but I guess we'll discuss next week, yes?
17:26:05 <jeff> ... please provide CPs and merge w other CPs
17:26:06 <ninja> fielding, thanks
17:26:10 <jeff> ... compromise
17:26:18 <jeff> ... let's move fast
17:26:25 <npdoty> +1 robsherman, thank you -- you and kj and I should make sure the wiki is clear
17:26:27 <Chris_IAB> what are 170 and 16?
17:26:29 <jeff> ... Next week will review CPs
17:26:43 <jeff> ... 2 weeks will finalize CPs
17:26:51 <schunter> q?
17:26:54 <npdoty> 170 is data append/first party; 16 is collect/retain/use/share
17:27:00 <dsinger> issue-170?
17:27:00 <trackbot> issue-170 -- Definition of and what/whether limitations around data append and first parties -- open
17:27:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/170
17:27:02 <jeff> Chris: Summarize 170 and 16
17:27:03 <dsinger> issue-16?
17:27:03 <trackbot> issue-16 -- What does it mean to collect, retain, use and share data? -- open
17:27:03 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/16
17:27:15 <jeff> MS: 170: Limitations on data append for first parties
17:27:15 <kulick> ISSUE-170: Definition of and what/whether limitations around data append and first parties
17:27:15 <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-170 Definition of and what/whether limitations around data append and first parties.
17:27:18 <trackbot> Sorry, dsinger, I don't understand 'trackbot is your friend!'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
17:27:34 <jeff> ... 16: Collect, maintain, use, and share data - defn.
17:27:51 <jeff> ... Topic: Introduction of new issues.
17:27:54 <kulick> ISSUE-16: What does it mean to collect, retain, use and share data?
17:27:54 <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-16 What does it mean to collect, retain, use and share data?.
17:28:07 <jeff> ... we will trunk (?) away 1 by 1.
17:28:15 <schunter> q?
17:28:18 <ninja> reminder for the poll deadline today
17:28:19 <jeff> ... completed agenda!
17:28:27 <jeff> Carl: Poll closes today.
17:28:32 <jeff> ... Please consider voting.
17:28:32 <npdoty> poll link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-poll/
17:28:40 <jeff> @@: What does a non-vote mean?
17:28:52 <npdoty> s/@@/chris_iab/
17:28:52 <jeff> CC/MS: Various answers
17:28:58 <jeff> q+
17:29:05 <johnsimpson> q+
17:29:05 <kulick> What does it mean when someone votes as "Yes, and Prefer" for two or more items?
17:29:46 <schunter> We said that you can only say "Yes, and prefer" for a single item.
17:29:55 <dsinger> I would urge them to make some sort of communication (ideally, vote; send email to the group; talk to the staff/chairs…)
17:29:55 <jeff> ... perhaps chairs and staff should reach out to non-voters
17:29:58 <kulick> but not everyone has followed that
17:29:58 <npdoty> +1, we should try to reach out to people who don't submit input via this poll
17:30:10 <jeff> JS: Is voting by entity or by WG participant?
17:30:11 <schunter> In case of multiple "and prefer"'s, I would count all as "yes"
17:30:12 <Zakim> -BrianH
17:30:17 <dsinger> It's a poll.  we're trying to determine what's viable and preferred
17:30:18 <npdoty> q+
17:30:19 <fielding> it is not a vote -- it is a poll of participants, which means individuals
17:30:23 <dsinger> q?
17:30:24 <rvaneijk> npdoty, yes, but if must not make the decision process intransparent...
17:30:25 <wseltzer> q+ to say it's not a "vote". everyone in the WG can speak
17:30:29 <npdoty> ack jeff
17:30:34 <npdoty> q-
17:31:18 <Zakim> -LynnJohnson
17:31:28 <johnsimpson> q?
17:31:32 <wseltzer> q-
17:31:34 <johnsimpson> q-
17:31:41 <WileyS> Unduly influence - yet you've each voted already.  :-)
17:31:43 <johnsimpson> q?
17:31:46 <Zakim> -[Apple]
17:31:56 <justin> There are currently two different votes from NAI in the poll.  FWIW.
17:32:02 <Walter> there is a general issue of WG-members non-participation
17:32:03 <npdoty> WileyS, we're participants too!
17:32:22 <npdoty> people can change their submissions, fyi
17:32:24 <wseltzer> It's not a "vote". everyone in the WG can speak
17:32:41 <justin> s/votes/responses
17:32:46 <schunter> q?
17:32:50 <jeff> Shane, I was voting as an individual in the WG; not to influence others
17:32:57 <schunter> q?
17:33:02 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
17:33:03 <Zakim> -Chris_Pedigo
17:33:07 <Zakim> -Walter
17:33:09 <Zakim> -LeeTien
17:33:09 <Zakim> -Chris_IAB
17:33:10 <jeff> Shane, I can't encourage others to vote - and not vote myself.
17:33:12 <Zakim> -adrianba
17:33:13 <Zakim> -moneill2
17:33:14 <Zakim> -matt
17:33:16 <Zakim> -[CDT]
17:33:17 <Zakim> -johnsimpson
17:33:17 <Zakim> -Carl
17:33:18 <Zakim> -kj
17:33:18 <Zakim> -ninja
17:33:18 <Zakim> -kulick
17:33:19 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has left #dnt
17:33:20 <Zakim> -hefferjr
17:33:21 <Zakim> -FPFJoeN
17:33:21 <Zakim> -Adamp
17:33:22 <Zakim> -schunter
17:33:22 <Zakim> -vinay
17:33:22 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:33:23 <Zakim> -robsherman
17:33:24 <npdoty> Zakim, list attendees
17:33:24 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +31.65.141.aaaa, rvaneijk, sidstamm, Wendy, +1.646.654.aabb, Walter, eberkower, +1.202.257.aacc, +1.202.587.aadd, mecallahan, FPFJoeN,
17:33:27 <Zakim> ... schunter, Carl, npdoty, +1.202.347.aaee, BerinSzoka, JackHobaugh, +1.203.563.aaff, justin, gashans, +1.301.325.aagg, GShans, +44.186.558.aahh, +1.202.643.aaii, moneill2,
17:33:27 <Zakim> ... +1.646.783.aajj, Fielding, dsinger, LynnJohnson, hwest, +1.303.224.aakk, vinay, +1.650.308.aall, robsherman, +44.142.864.aamm, Adamp, +49.431.98.aann, +1.301.325.aaoo,
17:33:28 <WileyS> Jeff - I hope you see how that may not be interpreted that way externally
17:33:32 <Zakim> ... +1.408.836.aapp, ninja, kulick, Jeff, +31.20.420.aaqq, WileyS, +1.212.231.aarr, +1.215.480.aass, +1.323.253.aatt, WaltMichel, Amy_Colando, hefferjr, +1.415.470.aauu,
17:33:32 <Zakim> ... [Microsoft], kj, +1.646.666.aavv, chapell, +1.510.501.aaww, LeeTien, Chris_Pedigo, +1.323.253.aaxx, Susan_Israel, +1.212.231.aayy, Ari, matt, adrianba, +1.919.388.aazz,
17:33:32 <Zakim> ... AnnaLong, omer, Brooks, Chris_IAB, johnsimpson, +1.202.347.bbaa, BrianH, +1.619.846.bbbb, hober, +1.917.318.bbcc
17:33:33 <Zakim> -Brooks
17:33:35 <Zakim> -JackHobaugh
17:33:35 <Zakim> -AnnaLong
17:33:35 <Zakim> -Fielding
17:33:35 <Zakim> -Wendy
17:33:35 <Zakim> -Jeff
17:33:35 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
17:33:35 <Zakim> -hwest
17:33:35 <Zakim> -eberkower
17:33:38 <Zakim> -chapell
17:33:40 <Zakim> -Amy_Colando
17:33:51 <Zakim> -hober
17:33:54 <npdoty> RRSAgent, please draft the minutes
17:33:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/10/09-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
17:34:09 <npdoty> chair: schunter, justin, cargill
17:34:11 <npdoty> RRSAgent, please draft the minutes
17:34:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/10/09-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
17:34:15 <npdoty> rrsagent, make logs public
17:34:19 <npdoty> rrsagent, bye
17:34:19 <RRSAgent> I see no action items