Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference -- 16 Oct 2013

<trackbot> Date: 16 October 2013

<Chris_IAB> just joined via blocked number

<Chris_IAB> is this 60-minutes?

<susanisrael> npdoty, I have muted

<susanisrael> npdoty, yes

<npdoty> scribenick: susanisrael

cargill: I am unable to see IRC this morning

npdoty: 33 people on phone

Welcome

cargill: thanks to everyone for coming. As you may have guessed this is a reasonably specialized meeting this week. Thanks for patience. Have poll results from last week, 43 respondents.....

<ninja> link to the poll results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-poll/results

<wseltzer> Agenda

cargill: unfortunately, we saw in results desire to continue, but not happiness with plan, desire to move forward with TPE conjoined and separately....
... bc results appear contradictory and there's no clear consensus we the chairs and team are trying to figure out how to move ahead....

<laurengelman> ??P81 is lauren gelman

the way we think would be good is to allow 3 min comments, which you may amplify with written comments, or not....would like to get through as many comments as possible.

<WileyS> Nick, Could you please ask Carl how the results were reviewed? Where "Yes and Prefered" weighted in their analysis? If yes, this would be disbanding could have 'won' in the poll. Curious to get their perspective ahead our comments if possible.

<Chris_IAB> Mejia quantitiative poll math: yes = +1pt, no = -1, Yes, prefer = +1.25 (if you use this math, there is a clear "winner" to the poll, or a group preference)

scribe: will stop you at 3 min. whole intent is to provide positive comments. Not necessarily "good job," bc that would be a compliment, but how to improve the group in ways we can act on would help....

philosophical discussions only in mail. want comments we can build on.....

<Chris_IAB> the poll was weighted, with the "Yes, prefer" option

Discussion of Poll Results

scribe: we have lots of issues, which is why we wanted to close on 16th.....will push through them as applicable in way we have decided to plan...

<wseltzer> ... Amy_Colando, JC_Cannon, Brad_Kulick, Jeff_Wilson, Chris_Pedigo, Adrian_Bateman, Shane_Wiley, Jack_Hobaugh, Tara_Whalen, Justin_Brookman, Marc_Groman, Roy_Fielding

we will push through comments by looking at response list on poll. Will start at top and work through....nick or wendy pls guide discussion and I will time....

<WileyS> Jeff - the response from Carl was fairly high-level, trying to understand the detail a bit more if possible (n the name of transparency)

if no more horrendous objections, will start with first speaker and continue...

<jeff> Shane, not sure what you mean by the detail. The major detail was that we wanted to hear more from the WG - hence the agenda for this session.

wseltzer: took list of responders and sent to zakim...start Haakon bratberg,,,,,no...no matthias

chappell: to provide constructive feedback, are paths 1,3, and 5 on table? (cargill, yes) but seems like path 4 requires modification of charter and i want to understand disconnect....

cargill: if everyone wants to revise charter we will....

<Chris_IAB> Alan's question: what are the REAL options?

chappell: everyone in group won't agree on anything. But if 3/4 of group wanted 4, is that viable without modifying the charter? how firm are you in not modifying the charter...

cargill: charter focuses on tracking, don't want to expand

<npdoty> charter specifies 3 particular documents, actually, for what it's worth

chappelll: yes, but it requires 2 documents...

<Chris_IAB> is 5 a real option?

cargill: intent is to get viable solution of charter issue and focus on tracking. I prefer not to change, but if there is a clever way to modify focused on 3/4 i will....

<fielding> T-76

<Walter> Chris_IAB: to me it is the least objectionable option

jeff: option 3 consistent with charter, option 4, debatable. might require rechartering. carl looking for creative ideas

<Chris_IAB> Walter, see my comment above on "Mejia poll math" (I agree with you)

cargill: trust us to be clever and respond to will of the group, use your full 3 min

<Walter> Chris_IAB: yes, and that agreement still scares me somewhat

<Walter> although I disagree with your maths

chappell: i think i made preference known. I think half the group, if you omit w3c staff, said don't move forward. But if you want to move forward, then path 4 is workable. we are close on tpe but don't see way to do compliance spec

<Walter> it sounds a bit like 'unskewed polls' during the 2012 elections

chappell: i think 3/4 are workable.

dsinger: i don't think i need to repeat poll comments. I agree with roy that tpe without compliance spec would be bizarre. I think we have enough people willing to go ahead with compliance doc that there is critical mass.....

we have at least one issue i have suggested deferring, handling of widgets, so think there might be a few things worth deferring. I think we spend too much time on process and not enough finishing job....

scribe: npdoty, others are overloaded, need someone to manage online calendar......

<fielding> er, to be clear, the semantics will be defined in TPE … the goal in the past has been to do that by reference to TCS, but that has proven to be untenable given the widely varying rules for the TCS editor.

scribe: don't want people to ask for more time, just grind through issues

<Chris_IAB> can't hear Walter clearly

<johnsimpson> Can't hear Walter...

walter: one question--if only amount of detail we have right now, would not have preferred to [ ]...what are chances of not pulling back into quagmire....will put it on mail....

<npdoty> Walter will repeat in email.

<Walter> Yes, apologies for my crappy Skype connection

<wseltzer> [Bryan sent email comments]

vinay: thank you and thanks for call. suggest group move forward by focusing on defining on tracking to make sure we are all trying to do same thing. If we can do this we focus within the tpe ....

<Chapell> I am confused by the notion that options 1 and 2 are still on the table --- given that group members overwhelming voted against those options

vinay: i think that's close to final and would allow basis for implementation and would provide basis for other groups reg/or self reg to focus on compliance meaning. this would remove some dependencies in compliance doc....

<Brooks> Brooks is not in an area where I can be off mute. Please take me off the list for explaining answers. My pole response is fairly clear.

<Walter> npdoty: oh, and now you may understand why it is not a good idea to have me as scribe

npdoty: i willl try to be brief. Looking at comments, think constructive path forward might be possible by not moving both docs forward simultaneously....many people think we can work through compliance issues but frustrated with how....
... people raised concerns about tracking definition, and defining that may help prioritize issues.....jeff has already noted that option 3 would be compatible with charter...option 4 might even be compatible.....after all
... we did not do tracking selection list.....would like to do issues even today...

<jeff> Alan, I agree that Options 1 and 2 did not get wide support in the poll - but in this poll - there was no crisp consensus: For example; most respondents prefer to continue; of those wanting to continue, Option 2 has the plurality of "Yes, prefered".

dwainberg: to characterize results of poll, i think it's clear there is lack of interest in options 1 or 2 but interest in disbanding or pursuing tpe....if intent on moving forward would make sense to focus on tpe, where we have not had same process issues....
... could put out tpe and see how people respond....i think nick made point that tracking selection list was dropped so we could drop compliance doc....

sidstamm: a few things stuck out in list and poll. first 3 of these options will have mostly same outcome and will change only time spent on process not issues. Not sure which is best but need to get to issues not process....

<Chapell> Jeff, II'm not sure what you mean.. Option 3 received more YES votes.... If we were basing the results on the most YES, PREFERRED votes, then it would be option 5

sidstamm: think tpe close to done but need to have definition of tracking as roy said, mostly useless without that....if we can focus on issues we can make substantial progress.

lee: I am currently disenchanted with group based on process and substance. I am not excited about tpe only but not bc it's not a step forward, but without compliance doc i don't think we would have much of standard.
... big issues with substance and policy we have worked on i feel we have major gaps re issues we sort of resolved early on such as size of first parties with affiliates. WRT permitted uses I think we are far from understanding....

<jeff> Alan, I agree it is complicated and there are different ways to look at the data. 24 "prefer" to continue; 17 "prefer" to stop. Of those that prefer to continue,11 "prefer" Option 2. I don't consider that a strong endorsement of Option 2 - but it is strong enough that it does not sense to "take it off the table" as you suggest.

<Chris_IAB> Jeff, the poll was weighted, with the "Yes, prefer" vote = more than a simple "yes" vote

lee: where common ground is for things like security and we (advocates) need to understand what companies actually need. so hard to know where to draw lines.

<npdoty> for context, the charter issue would be around the requirement noted in the charter that the documents should move forward together because definitions are needed for understanding the TPE; of course, the charter doesn't require us to write the specific documents titled in the charter

berin: i would like to start with what carl said. He thought there was clear indication group desires to move forward. I don't see that. I think many would prefer to stop work even as stacked and loaded as wording of option...

<justin_> I don't think there was any ambiguity about Option 5 . . .

<jeff> Chris, We looked at both "Yes" and "Yes prefer". That is why Carl focused on Options 3 and 4 in his email to announce the agenda.

<dwainberg> But, dsinger, option 5 had the strongest preference.

5 was. Said was it in your interest to stop work, and should have said should group be "disbanded." that answer still seems to me to be the winner so i question the operating premise that we should just decide how to move forward.

scribe: it's clearly a policy issue so don't think w3c is right place to solve this.

cargill: so disband group?

<dwainberg> Overall, however, it does seem the weight of preferences (yes and yes+prefer) is in options 3 and 4.

berin: doesn't mean the group;'s work was wasted but think about disbanding.

chris_iab: i have to agree with berin. was concerned that it sounded like, at beginning of call, all options were not on table. seems like leaders/staff want to continue but i looked at votes as being weighted. If you use that...

<npdoty> I think the text of option 5 was phrased in the poll to emphasize that no-confidence was an individual response; I apologize if respondents found it unfair in its writing

<dsinger> is there a viable alternative venue that could do compliance?

chris_iab: analysis (more weight for "preferred") i think group wants to disband.seems w3c is always intent on interpreting...

<WileyS> DAA

cargill: pls try to stay positive

<Chapell> IT is not particularly helpful for the chairs to attempt to censor the comments of wg members.

rvaneijk: would help me to focus on tpe first then compliance spec. I don't think we should keep alternating focus every other week. Would allow tests of whether protocol is fit for purpose. would send signal we can make
... progress. So support option 3.

<fielding> Chapell, it is not helpful to waste other people's time with comments that are already reflected in the poll. The comment time here is ONLY for constructive engagement. If none, say none.

<rvaneijk> Moving forward with TPE first to LC provides us: - focus on the technical protocol - implementations by browsers - more test implementations to see whether the protocol is fit for purpose (multitude of tracking scenarios) - clear signal to the outside world of progress

ninja: I am still willing to go forward. Think w3c still best forum for global minimum standards for tracking. Regulatory solutions are fragmented and regioinal. This is global issue, think we should try to solve globally.

<Chris_IAB> Carl, the co-chairs and staff need to be open to constructive criticism, and not censor opinion, especially when solicited by the co-chairs

<jeff> Chris, I am very open to constructive criticism and am trying to address it on IRC as it comes in.

ninja: also would not be happy with option 4 because without guidance for compliance would not be workable and would lead to confusion. If plan did not get positive feedback should ask people who disagreed with plan
... how they prefer to move forward. But i support doing tpe first, then compliance.

<justin_> ChrisIAB, I stepped away for a moment so don't know what happened. But please feel free to say whatever you like in IRC or on the mailing list.

<Chris_IAB> Well Jeff, I was just cut off, twice, because I was being "negative" (subjective read of my comments, btw-- I was being factual)

Jeff: pass

<Chapell> Fielding, that's fine by me, but all due respect, few of the comments thus far have done much more than restate poll opinions

Kathy_joe: chose option 3 as having most chance of success. felt browser companies introducing own implementations so would be good to have one agreement. Think compliance document needs to take its time.

<fielding> Chapell, yes, I would have cut off the diatribes in 5 seconds … but this is Carl being an optimist that something will eventually be said that is constructive.

Kathy_joe: not good to rush through issues for compliance. And would help to have all process written in one place. Would help to have definition of tracking clarified first. The other is how do calls go.

<justin_> kj, fair point!

Kathy_joe: we notice that sometimes it says you will get 15 min but you don't. that could be more effective.

adam phillips: voted for option 3 because the issue for us is to have clear understanding of what people are doing when dnt is turned on. We have had problems with having consent based panel turned off under dnt....

would like to see group continue, but tpe first, then def of tracking, then compliance.

<jeff> Chris, looking at the IRC log, I can only guess that when you were imputing motive to a third party that the Chair interpreted that as being negative rather than factual.

moneill. was torn between option 2 and 3. came out for 2. I think compliance spec has to be clear and mean something. I think we are close to finishing tpe. would be good to see api implemented in more browsers.

<ninja> One more side comment: I think in the last three weeks we made more progress coming to a consensus on the tracking definition, than in the 12 months before. The focused work on specific issues has its merits.

<Chris_IAB> there is one missing option: take option 5 (clear "winner" of the weighted poll), then re-charter with new focused and informed charterl, and fresh start

scribe: think we should get tracking definition done. we are approaching consensus.

<Chris_IAB> current charter is not achievable

<Chris_IAB> too broad

thomas schauff: thanks for chance to express german view. we were almost in favor of not continuing. but there might be a slight majority wishing to move forward. we have presented regulatory regime to EC re online

<rvaneijk> Thomas, there is NO acknowledgement at COM ...

<Walter> rvaneijk: none that is public at least

scribe: advertising. EC acknowledged system, transparency and user control and then asked us to collaborate with w3c. but have to say now that we can't collaborate bc there is no spec. but we have a system.

<rvaneijk> Walter: hence Thomas can not claim there is acknowledgement, it is an unfair representation of the status quo of the discussion.

scribe: so for us if this group moves forward, as rvaneijk said, should do tpe first, then focus on compliance. support want ninja said that we need a global level playing field. finally i invite working group not to mainly...

<Walter> yes, very true. I am worried about the lack of public communication from COM in this regard.

<jeff> Chris, as mentioned above there are indeed different ways to read the results. My reading is that the majority prefers to continue. As David points out, there is clearly sufficient interest for a group to continue.

scribe: focus on US market, but should perhaps refocus on global compliance as well as definition of tracking.

<scribe> NEW SCRIBE SOON?

johnsimpson: thanks for opportunity to offer way forward, but i can't so i chose option 5.

amycolando: defer my time to jc and adrian.

<Chris_IAB> so to be clear, the only options for this poll are to move forward in some fashion

jc: still feel option 1 is best way forward and think we should keep work in w3c to keep implementation consistent. ok with option 2 or 3 but not useful without compliance doc.

bradkulick: from perspective of coming in process december of last year. as i understand it tpe has made progress. for compliance spec it seems we have made progress, but seems we backslide.
... would appreciate more clarity about process to help us move forward. coming in last december was surprised there was no agmt on some core definitions such as tracking. But we are making progress. Let's focus more on that first.

<npdoty> scribenick: npdoty

<jeff> Chris, yes, Carl communicated that interpretation in his email. That is how the Chairs/Staff read the results. To be clear, we have not yet discussed with the Director - and this entire discussion will help cast that discussion.

<susanisrael> nick thanks. can start scrining again in a few min.

jeff_wilson: thanks participants for all the hard work, no additional comments.

<susanisrael> npdoty, i will scribe again in 15 min if you want.

adrianba: a couple of points to make:
... remind the group of the discussion we had when new chairs were introduced, specifically around decision policy
... influenced by the one used in the HTML WG, used successfully so at the end of getting HTML5 to CR on contentious issues regarding something that could be considered policy, accessibility
... lessons to be learned from the HTML WG about process, could benefit from conversation with that group/chairs

<Chris_IAB> jeff, this is EXACTLY the type of process issue that has devided the group-- shutting down discussions arbitrarily, not issuing clear criteria for interpreting the results of polls, and the like.

adrianba: +1 to dsinger, in a clear calendar, happy to help in some way
... understand sid's concern about getting to the issues, but clarity of process is useful

WileyS: thanks for chance for feedback, preferred TPE first option, TPE gives a chance for the server to respond with what the server is doing, giving the TPE a way to stand on its own
... if the group wants to move forward on compliance, we can do that, but w3c process not well-suited to policy discussion like we've seen ourselves in
... some have lack of clarity, others lack of confidence

<jeff> Chris, sorry you view it that way. Carl in his eamil articulated his interpretation that folks want to move forward. I heard from many TPWG veterans that what the group most doesn't like is non-constructive process discussions. That was why Carl proposed to use the time for constructive discussions on how to improve the plan.

<Chris_IAB> reset = re-charter, with narrow and clear objectives (informed by this failed group)

WileyS: move forward on TPE immediately, to get that out into the wild and implementation; come back on Compliance but re-think process

<justin_> WileyS, do you have a concrete proposal for an alternative process?

WileyS: not stated by w3c staff or too focused on chairs' perspectives

<dsinger> so, go ahead, suggest better process. usually what we hear is whining

<justin_> wileyS, definitely interested in alternatives, just not entirely sure what else could work!

<Chris_IAB> Jeff, I guess "contructive" has a particular meaning to W3C, different than the dictionary definition-- that's where we are disconnected my friend

<susanisrael> npdoty, i can pick up again if you want after next speaker

JackHobaugh: want to reiterate one point, Option 2 is scary regarding the cost of implementing a standard (e911/calea); could double the cost/burden if re-implementation would be required

<susanisrael> npdoty, thanks

<WileyS> Justin, I think we're learning more from each failed multi-stakeholder process (NTIA, W3C TPWG v1 - as examples). We should sit down and discuss a path forward but if nothing else, the poll showed the vast majority of the working group does NOT trust the current W3C process for a policy discussion

<jeff> Chris, I didn't understand your point.

JackHobaugh: support is all within option 3 and 4. excited to be involved in w3c standard because of technical standards, if group doesn't take option 5

<WileyS> Nick - the short version: complete TPE - has everything we have and fits well with the W3C process. Rethink how we approach a policy discussion - involve the working group on defining the process forward. THEN (and only then) move back to solving a multi-version compliance document.

<Chris_IAB> jeff, my dialog earlier was constructive (especially if allowed to continue), but constructive does not preclude criticism (hence, the term "constructive criticism")

justin_: mostly in listening mode; challenging because I very strongly hear that there are people who don't want to continue and people who do want to continue, hard to square that circle

<WileyS> Nick - so is a bit of a merge of parts of 2, 3, and 4

justin_: regarding option 3, maybe focus on the definitional things, absolutely do need to define things like tracking in order to move forward with tpe

<WileyS> Nick - hopefully you're NOT hearing that people want to move forward with no changes - that is the clear VERY small minority at this point

justin_: comments here have been helpful, detailed suggestions are certainly welcome

<Chris_IAB> npdoty, to be clear, Jack was not giving his organization's support for options 3 and 4 (for the record); he was saying that was his interpretation of the conversation today (and not necessarily the poll results)

<Chris_IAB> Great point, Roy

fielding: industry likely to respect the wishes of the user when they're accurately expressed

<jeff> Chris, I'm just describing the groundrules Carl set out in his email. He (1) asked for constructive suggestions and (2) prohibited criticism. His chairing is just being consistent with what he put out in his email.

fielding: the TPE has the semantics it needs to express how the server will respond to those desires

<Chris_IAB> new concept - let's put the user first - fantastic point

fielding: it is possible for the server to state how it implements it, for example to the w3c compliance document

<Chris_IAB> jeff, that's not consistent with democratic process

<WileyS> Nick - I've provided fairly detailed recommendations - what more detail do you desire?

fielding: currently struggling with ad hoc deadlines, being done by a small set of individuals
... need to not be overburdened every Tuesday night

<jeff> Chris, I believe the Chairs were making a chairing call on how to manage the group.

fielding: phrased positively: my technical contributions are more coherent with more sleep

<dsinger> I too struggle to find a balance between deadlines, and moving ahead, and leaving enough time for thought and consensus

if you didn't respond to the poll but want to speak up with comments now, feel free to q+

<WileyS> HTML5 is a very different problem space than DNT Policy discussions

hober: have been participating in HTML WG for some time, happy to answer any questions about how their process has worked

<WileyS> HTML5 didn't make/destroy online ecosystems - the table stakes are very different here

<Chris_IAB> jeff, I maintain that that "call" is not consistent with democratic process; limiting the choices to the chair's interpretation is not at all democratic (more of a benevolent dictatorship)

<WileyS> CalOPPA?

<justin_> WileyS, right, probably CalOPPA.

<hober> WileyS: the technical work is quite different, but the "how do we reach consensus on contentious issues" challenge is the same :)

cargill: have accomplished what we wanted to accomplish today

<Chapell> A handful of people have suggested a different path --- I'll call it 4a --- where we define tracking and then move to a technical spec that includes a definition of tracking. It is certainly an interesting option. I'm hopeful that we have time to discuss as a group prior to this being deemed "the" path forward by W3C staff.

<Chris_IAB> well Carl, you only allowed for one type of comment to be fair

cargill: would prefer not to go into issues today; thank everyone for their constructive, positive comments

<susanisrael> cargill, thank you for your efforts and for listening

<WileyS> Hober - I respectfully disagree - what is at stake is vastly different and thefore the approach needs to appropriate change to match the situation

<jeff> Alan, did you want to queue up to verbalize your last point?

cargill: would prefer not to commit to schedule to not speak for my co-chairs

<vinay> +1 to Alan

<WileyS> +1 to Alan

<vinay> its what I tried to say, but maybe not well

<Chris_IAB> the chairs and staff are only hearing what they want to hear; this is very disapointing

cargill: write a synopsis of what we've heard

<BerinSzoka> for the record, I don't think we should be surprised that today's comments are more "positive" than those expressed in writing, given that (1) people are always more candid and frank in writing and (2) Carl repeatedly shot down negative comments on today's call

<justin_> Maybe call it 3.5 (since it's between 3 and 4)?

<fielding> My constructive comment was that I see one path forward and that is defining tracking such that we can be sure everyone knows what the user wants (and that includes the user) and then add a feature to the tracking status response to list specifications that the server does adhere to. I think that is all we need to finish TPE. I do not see any chance of industry accepting the ability of W3C chairs (whoever they might be) to substantially impact their compliance

<fielding> and business based on arbitrary interpretation of the strength of an objection.

<jeff> Chris, that is unfair.

cargill: last call for comments?

<WileyS> Really a +1 to Roy, Alan, and myself (tried to say the same thing myself to some degree)

<dsinger> I do want to express my admiration for the chairs, their willingness (?) to stay in the furnace, and bring us out alive :-(

<BerinSzoka> +q

<justin_> 3.5!

<moneill2> 3a

<WileyS> Justin - i agree - 3.5

Chapell: handful of constructive comments for what I call 4a, define tracking and otherwise continue on the technical spec, want some time to think about that

<dsinger> yes, this is a (3) variant

<WileyS> David - It feels like a majority consensus at this time.

cargill: can you share those comments on the mailing list?

<dsinger> I am hopeful of emerging with a definition of tracking (ball I think is in my court to respond to the helpful comments overnight)

<jeff> Chris, in particular, what I want to hear is "Option 1/2", but I'm hearing all sorts of input and I'm listening.

<justin_> Yeah, it's also related to fielding's idea to migrate certain elements of the compliance spec into the TPE standard (that may be more aggressive than what chapell is suggesting!).

Chapell: yes, and happy to hear other details on plans from others

<hober> WileyS: I think the stakes are really high in both groups. Certainly, what's at stake *for you* might wildly differ between the two groups.

<WileyS> +1 to David - doesn't make sense to push on hard deadlines on Compliance spec when the majority feedback as to either abandon or CHANGE how we approach this in general.

<Chris_IAB> jeff, it's not at all "unfair" - if you construct a conversation to only be postitive and limit it to one path, then it's actually unfair to characterize the conversation and the group's will as supporting that path

dwainberg: concerned about deadline, especially given the potential changes to the plan and interest in getting the best documented work

<justin_> dwainberg, It would be nice to see what's on the table in order to determine how to go forward. This has been on the table for months :(

<WileyS> nober - disagree again (nothing personal) - HTML5 didn't break the entire internet ecosystem - but rather set the framework for a new one. This is could break the current internet (and the future one)

<dsinger> I have plenty of blame already, one more bit won't hurt me ...

cargill: ability to schedule the events, one of the big needs is administrative scheduling (maybe a comment of dsinger)

<hober> WileyS: tell that to the Flash team :)

<Chris_IAB> Jeff, why did you include option 5 in the poll, if you aren't going to allow conversation on it when we discuss the poll... unfair? come on man

<Chapell> Justin: items have been on the table, but we seem to be heading down a new path...

<WileyS> hober - that's one company - this impacts ALL companies online

cargill: useful to know where the issues/comments are likely to be, so we can do some planning

<fielding> justin_, so was the US tax filing deadline of Oct 15. Being on the calendar doesn't get the work done if you have every day busy.

<dsinger> to WileyS, I think you had to be there, with HTML5. 'sky is falling' arguments were made there also (with about the same level of support)

cargill: if we come up with administrative help, can perhaps do a rolling schedule
... give everyone time to read, digest and respond as well as to give chairs a chance to construct the discussion

<jeff> Chris, I allowed Option 5 because I sincerely wanted to know if the consensus was to stop. That was not the majority view.

<WileyS> David - folks from Yahoo where there - I've heard. This is categorically different (perhaps not for Apple since your revenue is not based on 3rd party ad revenue)

dwainberg: I agree, like having weeks to respond to comments in order to have a constructive discussion
... probably have enough experience of the issues that we know what's going to be involved
... you can look at the issue list, should be pretty clear what's involved

<WileyS> Jeff, while not my personal vote, if weighted at 2 (versus 1 for a straight yes and -1 for no), option 5 wins.

<Chris_IAB> jeff, that's not a proper interpretation of the poll, I'm sorry-- it's just not - Option 5 had the most support

<Chris_IAB> Option 5 had at least as much support as 3 or 4, and yet we couldn't discuss it

<jeff> Chris, it is true that Option 5 had a plurality of "Yes, prefered"

<dsinger> option 5 did not have the most support, and it did not indicate that the group would be non-viable (with too few members) going ahead

BerinSzoka: do appreciate difficult situation w3c leadership is in here, difficulty of divining a path forward from the poll results
... believe intentionally or not that the wording of Option 5 was unfair, which influenced the results

<Chris_IAB> Berin, can you state that in a positive manner? ;)

BerinSzoka: problem of poll results being difficult to understand, conversation where all comments have to be positive

<WileyS> David - depends on how you weight "yes and prefer" - please do the math (we have)

BerinSzoka: don't believe the presence of positive discussion today should be taken as lack of interest in stopping work

<Chris_IAB> Carl, Option 5 had as much support as 3 and 4, but we weren't able to discuss Option 5 today, really

<dsinger> I don't see any reason to weight a preference. the prefer is as compared to other yes, not the strength of the yes vs. the no on the same question

<ninja> I think you cannot mathematically calculate yes and yes, prefer, as there was only one disband-option, but 4 options on how to move forward.

cargill: what I'm looking for is something positive, including the option of stopping work and taking our chance with other outcomes

<WileyS> David - that's illogical since you have only one "yes and prefer" and have mulitple "yes" votes - this would dictate a weighting - not sure how you don't see that.

<susanisrael> npdoty, i can scribe while you speak

cargill: standards discussion can be long and difficult; exit/venue-shopping is always an option and a concern

<Chris_IAB> Option 5 = W3C is not the right venue for this policy

<Chapell> Carl, a vote for option 5, is not venue shopping - i could be... it could also be that this group isn't able to use our time effectively to reach a mutually desired goal

<jeff> Chris, another important reading is that Option 3 - with only 15 No votes had the least objection.

<ninja> WileyS, I think the prefer was relevant to distinguish between options 1 to 4, but less for option 5. But this is only my guessing.

BerinSzoka: understand the concern, but option 5 is not necessarily venue shopping; wording changes the stated preferences

<justin_> Yes, BerinSzoka, "shut it down" is a legitimate option for the group. Option 5 is taken seriously, though I disagree that the phrasing on Option 5 was stacked.

<Chris_IAB> Jeff, least objectionable does NOT = consensus

<WileyS> Ninja - I agree that having 4 "go forward" options and only 1 "don't go forward" option does in of itself create bias, but I believe if you weight "yes and prefer" that brings balance to the poll.

<fielding> That was last week's deadline.

<fielding> This week's deadline is that the content within the issues must be complete, in spite of the fact that we still haven't agreed on what we are working on yet.

dsinger: doesn't mean we would not take issues, just that some might not be resolved if we could have seen them before

<jeff> Chris, I didn't say that least objectionable = consensus. I was merely addressing your statement that Option 5 has as much support as Option 3.

<Chris_IAB> dsinger, we can say, this charter doesn't work, and then re-charter for something can work

dsinger: do not know any standards body where you can stop other people from doing work (for example, ISO)

<WileyS> David, the DAA has.

<BerinSzoka> Justin: a fairly worded Option 5 would simply have said "Disband the TPWG"

<Chris_IAB> dsinger, DAA has stepped up to that

dsinger: don't know of any equally viable alternative

<WileyS> W3C for tech spec, DAA for compliance

<Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to -1

<Walter> Chris_IAB: don't get me started on the DAA

<susanisrael> scribenick: susanisrael

<Chapell> dsinger, given limited time, working group members may be reluctant to move forward in additional venues outside the w3c until/unless this group reaches resolution...

<Chris_IAB> Walter, you mean you don't want to opine on the sucess of the DAA to creative meaningful notice and choice for actual users, in scale? :)

<Chapell> .... so the lack of other venues may quickly change if this group were to disband

npdoty: re issue collection. we do have a lot of issues, i have been trying to organize. we have a lot of open issues and I can tell you which are new. that's why organizing is helpful, and tracking change proposals.

scrbenick: npdoty

<npdoty> cargill: other comments?

<WileyS> +q

<fielding> npdoty, so leave them as raised until they are completed. The deadline serves only one purpose -- to discard relevant issues.

<Walter> Chris_IAB: I think Matt Groenig already has done it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M

<npdoty> WileyS: if you can give us some expectation of timeframe, co-chairs, staff, director to meet

<Chris_IAB> Walter, people criticize the Olympic movement too... what's your point?

<npdoty> cargill: my consideration will start in 9 minutes talking with the chairs

<Walter> my point is that the term 'window dressing' is a very charitable way of describing the DAA's activities in this area

<Walter> their departure message from this working group says enough

<dsinger> the deadline serves to help scope our work; if there was something that could have been raised by the deadline, but was not, the group's most likely decision will be to defer it

<Chris_IAB> Walter, don't let perfect be the enomy of good my friend

<Walter> after Snowden seriously asking where the harm is in tracking people?

<npdoty> ... would like to say that next week or tomorrow everything will be planned, but probably will take a while

<fielding> dsinger, we are only talking about raised issues.

<Chris_IAB> Walter, it's a very real program, with real participation and enforcement

<dsinger> ok, on raised issues, it's an art to set deadlines for proposals and so on, granted

<npdoty> ... dsinger's comment about stopping work well put. poll and today's call tells us there is a large level of dissatisfaction

<npdoty> ... but ask for time for serious consideration

<fielding> today's deadline is "All ISSUEs are properly documented; Phase 2 starts for all issues." which is completely absurd and unnecessary to spur progress.

<WileyS> Having heard the majority support for option 3 - hopefully we'll hear something from the co-chairs and staff on that path forward soon.

<npdoty> ... value of a standard (put by Roy) is common definitions and understandings

<dwainberg> Walter, please explain how DNT is going to solve the NSA issue?

<Chris_IAB> isn't it true, that T B Lee make the only vote here?

<Chris_IAB> the only vote that counts, anyway?

<Walter> dwainberg: less data is less data that can be demanded through FISAA kangaroo courts

<jeff> Chris, formally, yes - but he will review the data, the comments, and the interpretations

<WileyS> 2 weeks - thank you Carl.

<npdoty> ... while I would love to have a solution tomorrow, have to look at options, planning around 3 and 4, talking with HTML

<Walter> dwainberg: it is not going to fix the NSA issue, but it will reduce it

<dwainberg> DNT will have zero impact on that

<dsinger> to Chris_IAB, technically/formally, I think you are right. maybe time for a heart to heart, man to man, with TimBL

<Chris_IAB> Carl, can you also give us at least 2-weeks on the issues then?

<dwainberg> no it won't

<npdoty> ... please grant us at least 2 weeks, does that help?

<justin_> We will do our damnedest.

<fielding> A sensible deadline would be "Only completed issues are moved to OPEN and phase 2; all other issues remain RAISED"

<npdoty> WileyS: yes, thanks.

<justin_> I think we will at least move forward on defining tracking :)

<Walter> dwainberg: ultimately the NSA issue will be solved by the rest of the world taking their business away from the USA. Which would be a shame for free trade and something I'd rather not advocate.

<npdoty> jeff: don't want to stop progress in the meantime, with continuing calls

<dsinger> commits to follow-up on 5 today, I see light at the end of the tunnel

<WileyS> +1 to Roy - not sure why we're pushing for final langauge on issues that may be 23 weeks out from discussion - makes no sense to me.

<Chris_IAB> so it's a dictatorship, to be clear... Tim will decide

<dwainberg> possibly, but DNT, especially the DNT we're discussing, isn't going to do anything about it, so it's a red herring to point to that as a rationale for continuing the path we're on.

<npdoty> cargill: yes, in particular issues 5 and 10, necessary for options 3 and 4; proceeding is covering as enough ground as possible while we clear things up

<dsinger> to Chris_IAB, ideally, questions never get to Tim's desk.

<justin_> Thanks all. We are trying.

<Walter> dwainberg: it does solve issues with data retention I have. Maybe not the NSA, but at least other parties in that sphere.

<dsinger> thanks to the new (and old) chairs

<WileyS> David - I think this one has to get there if the outcome is anything other than options 3 or 4

<npdoty> cargill: thank you very much, appreciate everyone's positivity and focus, helpful especially as a new chair

<Chris_IAB> dsinger, Jeff already told me that Tim will decide

<Walter> dwainberg: the USA is not the only nation that seems hell-bent on becoming a dystopian nightmare. Most EU member states are hardly better

<WileyS> Walter, why reference Snowden and then suggest DNT doesn't solve that problem in the same breath?

<npdoty> ... concludes this meeting, thank you for your understanding and patience

<wseltzer> [adjourned]

<dsinger> adjourned?

- DRAFT -

Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference

16 Oct 2013

Attendees

Contents

Welcome

Discussion of Poll Results

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output