15:47:28 RRSAgent has joined #dnt 15:47:28 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/04/16-dnt-irc 15:47:30 RRSAgent, make logs world 15:47:32 Zakim, this will be TRACK 15:47:32 ok, trackbot; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 13 minutes 15:47:33 Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference 15:47:33 Date: 16 April 2014 15:47:51 chair: justin, schunter 15:55:59 Chris_IAB has joined #dnt 15:57:24 zakim, call ninja-office 15:57:24 ok, ninja; the call is being made 15:57:25 T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started 15:57:26 +Ninja 15:57:48 +Wendy 15:57:54 +??P9 15:58:27 I just joined 15:58:33 sidstamm has joined #dnt 15:58:35 maybe it's me? 15:58:37 dsinger has joined #dnt 15:58:49 npdoty has joined #dnt 15:58:53 zakim, ??P9 is ChrisIAB 15:58:53 +ChrisIAB; got it 15:58:56 btw, am I the only one hearing some static on the line? 15:59:02 dsinger has joined #dnt 15:59:21 JackHobaugh has joined #dnt 15:59:26 rvaneijk has joined #dnt 15:59:26 hey all, sorry I can't dial in again this week, but will monitor irc 15:59:27 +hefferjr 15:59:37 -ChrisIAB 15:59:45 +[Apple] 15:59:53 zakim, [apple] has dsinger 15:59:53 +dsinger; got it 15:59:58 +Jack_Hobaugh 16:00:13 +??P19 16:00:23 I'm back - no static this time :) 16:00:25 +RichardWeaver 16:00:32 zakim, ??P19 is ChrisIAB 16:00:32 +ChrisIAB; got it 16:00:41 justin has joined #dnt 16:00:43 +Peder_Magee 16:00:48 thanks, ChrisIAB, much better, no echo 16:00:49 +rvaneijk 16:00:49 +dwainberg 16:00:54 WileyS has joined #dnt 16:00:55 Richard_comScore has joined #dnt 16:00:57 dwainberg has joined #dnt 16:01:11 zakim, who is here? 16:01:11 On the phone I see Ninja, Wendy, hefferjr, [Apple], Jack_Hobaugh, ChrisIAB, RichardWeaver, Peder_Magee, rvaneijk, dwainberg 16:01:13 [Apple] has dsinger 16:01:13 On IRC I see dwainberg, Richard_comScore, WileyS, justin, rvaneijk, JackHobaugh, dsinger, npdoty, sidstamm, Chris_IAB, RRSAgent, Zakim, ninja, trackbot, wseltzer, walter, hober 16:01:16 +npdoty 16:01:40 zakim, who is making noise? 16:01:47 +[CDT] 16:01:51 dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ChrisIAB (4%), Peder_Magee (19%) 16:01:52 zakim, cdt has me 16:01:53 +justin; got it 16:02:01 +WileyS 16:02:05 + +1.323.253.aaaa 16:02:14 Zakim, who is making noise? 16:02:22 +Chris_Pedigo 16:02:24 <_3538> _3538 has joined #dnt 16:02:26 npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ChrisIAB (64%), [CDT] (38%) 16:02:48 I am muted 16:02:57 Zakim, aaaa is Ari 16:02:58 +Ari; got it 16:02:58 zakim, aaaa is Ari 16:03:00 sorry, justin, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa' 16:03:02 zakim, please choose a scribe 16:03:02 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose [CDT] 16:03:10 Zakim, who is making noise? 16:03:14 zakim, please choose a scribe 16:03:14 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose dwainberg 16:03:20 npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ChrisIAB (35%), [CDT] (50%) 16:03:23 schunter has joined #dnt 16:03:25 Zakim, mute Chris_IAB 16:03:25 sorry, npdoty, I do not know which phone connection belongs to Chris_IAB 16:03:34 mat has joined #dnt 16:03:42 zakim, mute me 16:03:42 matt has joined #dnt 16:03:42 Ninja should now be muted 16:03:45 Zakim, unmute Chris_IAB 16:03:45 sorry, npdoty, I do not know which phone connection belongs to Chris_IAB 16:03:46 ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt 16:03:48 +??P35 16:03:53 zakim, mute ChrisIAB 16:03:54 ChrisIAB should now be muted 16:03:54 scribenick: ninja 16:03:57 Zakim, ??P35 is schunter 16:03:57 +schunter; got it 16:04:08 vinay has joined #dnt 16:04:14 colsen has joined #dnt 16:04:31 Thank you! 16:04:34 +MattHayes 16:04:42 seltzer, npdoty, that's odd... as I'm physically muted on my side 16:04:48 let me call back in again 16:04:52 justin: On the plan how to move forward. We will try to do a better job about announcing the agenda earlier. 16:04:54 amyc has joined #dnt 16:04:59 -ChrisIAB 16:05:06 +[FTC] 16:05:22 Brooks has joined #dnt 16:05:35 https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/207 16:05:37 +Brooks 16:05:37 +??P40 16:05:46 dialed back in now 16:05:49 ... We will take up compliance issues again. We will follow the usual procedure, asking for text proposals and discussing them and if we do not find consensus get to a Call for objection. 16:05:57 zakim, ??P40 is Chris_IAB 16:05:57 +Chris_IAB; got it 16:06:00 +[Microsoft] 16:06:06 robsherman has joined #dnt 16:06:07 ... Today talk about ISSUE-207 the disregard signal 16:06:17 zakim, take up agendum 3 16:06:17 agendum 3. "ISSUE-207: Conditions for dis-regarding (or not) DNT signals" taken up [from ninja] 16:06:48 vinay_ has joined #dnt 16:06:48 + +1.202.370.aabb 16:06:50 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Disregarding 16:06:52 zakim, aabb is robsherman 16:06:52 +robsherman; got it 16:06:56 justin: Jonathan Mayer had put up a text proposal on servers must not disregard a technically valid signal. 16:06:59 did I miss something? are we talking about a compliance provision in the TPE? 16:07:33 oh, did we shift now to working on the TCS? 16:07:45 ... We are talking about how to address the disregard signal in the Compliance and Scope specification. 16:07:48 We of course strongly disagree with that perspective. A Server should be able to send the Disregard response anytime they feel there is a material issue with the signal or the sender of the signal. 16:08:21 +vinay 16:09:06 WaltMichel has joined #DNT 16:09:15 .... There are a lot of people in the group that disagree with Jonathan's proposal. Currently there are no provisions on when to send this signal. 16:09:25 q+ 16:10:03 q+ on one sentence mention of disregard in compliance 16:10:06 +WaltMichel 16:10:10 ack dwainberg 16:10:12 ack dwa 16:10:21 Zakim, who is making noise? 16:10:33 npdoty, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: dwainberg (40%), [CDT] (65%), WaltMichel (53%) 16:10:40 ... When I looked at the document this morning I thought that Jonathan's proposal may not be necessary. Based on the current text for the D signal in the TPE. 16:10:43 Zakim, mute WaltMichel 16:10:43 WaltMichel should now be muted 16:10:43 zakim mute WaltMichel 16:10:45 I can't here anything 16:10:48 better now 16:10:50 It was WaltMichel 16:11:08 adrianba has joined #dnt 16:11:25 Why is this the first TCS question we're taking up now? And why are we considering a proposal from someone who's withdrawn from the group many months ago. 16:11:28 dwainberg: What is the reasoning for taking up this TCS issue first. And why taking up Jonathan's proposal when he left the group months ago. 16:11:45 my perception is that we have reached an uneasy peace and maybe opening this is going to open old wounds to no useful effect 16:11:52 -Ari 16:12:15 +Ari 16:12:31 + +1.201.530.aacc 16:12:36 -Ari 16:12:36 justin: fair question, no magic to it. We thought it may be easier to tackle since closely related to our recent work and may not be overly controversial. 16:12:38 q? 16:12:40 " A third party to a given user action that disregards a DNT signal MUST indicate so to the user agent, using the response mechanism defined in the [TRACKING-DNT] recommendation. " 16:12:42 ack npd 16:12:42 npdoty, you wanted to comment on one sentence mention of disregard in compliance 16:12:46 many, if not most of the provisions in the draft TCS, are out of date 16:12:50 Ari has joined #dnt 16:13:01 susanisrael has joined #dnt 16:13:15 ... I heard previously from Walter and John Simpson support for Jonathan's proposal. We need to check if that's still the case. 16:13:37 +q 16:13:37 Which TCS draft are we working on? 16:13:50 +Ari 16:13:51 npdoty: Referncing the section of the TCS spec on the D signal: " A third party to a given user action that disregards a DNT signal MUST indicate so to the user agent, using the response mechanism defined in the [TRACKING-DNT] recommendation. " 16:13:52 I copied/pasted from the editors' draft: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html 16:13:55 The two points we agreed upon earlier: (1) if you're going to disregard then you must share that with the user and (2) if you send Disregard you must also provide a resource link to explain why that position is being taken. 16:14:29 They changed the draft on us - so we need to fix it 16:14:54 Agreed with Shane. I thought that's where the group landed. 16:15:26 justin: We made these decisions for TPE, we may need to port these over to TCS. TCS may require additional transparency. 16:15:59 q? 16:16:00 when did this agenda item go out? I'm not feeling prepared to answer these questions today 16:16:02 Hearing no one - please close the issue. 16:16:04 ... You may be right that no one wants to take up Jonathan's old proposal that servers must honor all DNT signals and not second guess them. 16:16:06 hwest has joined #dnt 16:16:09 +hwest 16:16:42 Justin, no one is arguing that a Server must always honor all signals no matter what. That's the whole purpose of having the D signal in the first place. 16:16:53 Can we please close this ticket? This is a waste of time. 16:17:02 moneill2 has joined #dnt 16:17:22 One that we were given literally an hour to prepare for. 16:17:35 ChrisPedigoOPA: Circular argument to say that you must honor all signals. If the company wants to comply it will take the DNT signals serious. And transparency is always key in the communication with the user. 16:17:41 mecallahan has joined #dnt 16:17:49 +[IPcaller] 16:17:56 q? 16:17:56 Quick question: does anyone WANT to discuss this (ever) again? Or can we close it as belonging to Mr Mayer? 16:18:00 ack chrisp 16:18:08 Please close 16:18:08 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 16:18:08 +moneill2; got it 16:18:14 fielding has joined #dnt 16:18:28 justin: taking up designers question. Does someone wants to keep this issue open? 16:18:29 q+ 16:18:34 +Fielding 16:18:46 ack dw 16:18:53 I'm fine with leaving the text as it is. (I was just trying to help us understand what the language in the document was.) 16:19:08 s/designers/dwainberg's/ 16:19:18 ... I will send the question to the mailing list and if no one takes this up. Let's close it. Just want to make sure, that we do not close relevant issues 16:19:37 q+ 16:20:09 vincent has joined #dnt 16:20:21 + +1.312.923.aadd 16:20:23 dwainberg: Will the chairs provide some kind of roadmap how to take on the compliance work. There is confusion about this particular document. Which version to use etc. 16:20:31 aadd is mecallahan 16:20:45 zakim aadd is mecallahan 16:20:49 Zakim, aadd is mecallahan 16:20:49 +mecallahan; got it 16:20:55 We have an editors' draft, with open issues 16:21:12 I believe this is the list of open/raised issues: https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/5 16:21:21 justin: Last summer the chairs decided to work on the previous June draft and collected issues up to October. We will take up this list of issues in the next weeks. 16:21:23 q+ 16:21:35 q+ 16:21:53 -Ari 16:22:02 dwainberg: Will we walk at some point through the document and raise new issues? 16:22:12 +Ari 16:22:55 ack rva 16:22:59 justin: Think we have a pretty comprehensive list of open issues. We have identified 15ish areas where we will ask the group for new text proposals. New issues are currently on the side. 16:23:59 +vincent 16:24:02 rvaneijk: Getting back to the D signal - Would a server in a chain be able to transfer the D signal down the chair. Asking about the transitivity. 16:24:18 justin: Not sure I get this completely. 16:24:44 q+ on transitivity 16:24:46 In an Exchange model, if the platform itself sends a "D" then I could see a transitive structure issue but if individual bidders in the ad placement offer different responses (some "D", some not) I'm not sure transitive value is necessary. 16:25:13 rvaneijk: News website would answer a DNT signal with D and also transfer the D signal to all ad networks on the site. 16:25:40 I can't think of any use case where D would be transitive. 16:25:40 The Publisher / Direct 3rd Party example is not a good use case for transitivity as each party responds on its own. 16:25:54 justin: I think in this example the publisher would answer N for Not tracking and the ad networks will answer in their own capacity. 16:26:07 Roy, there is a possible case in a Client-Server to Server-Server call chain - as exists in many Ad Exchanges. 16:26:45 -hwest 16:26:53 Nick, to your point, they'd like not forward the DNT signal in the server-to-server call 16:27:00 s/like/likely 16:27:00 zakim, unmute me 16:27:00 Ninja should no longer be muted 16:27:20 WileyS, right, and the first party in that case would respond 'D' directly to the user 16:27:42 npdoty: in the client-server case (301 redirects, etc.), each party can respond directly to the end user (with a D or not) 16:28:25 ... in the first party server to other servers case, the first party might choose to disregard, reply with D and then not comply with first party compliance restrictions (like sharing with a third party) 16:28:39 q? 16:28:43 ack ninja 16:28:44 I don’t think ‘passing a D’ makes sense. Each response contains what that server thinks it is doing. If you want to *instruct* your thirtd parties to ignore something, they will need to respond ‘D’ and explain ‘Fred made me do it’ in their policy. 16:28:46 ack npd 16:28:46 npdoty, you wanted to comment on transitivity 16:29:07 ninja: We will take up dwainbergs roadmap suggestion. Team will send out an overview of what the areas we have identified for compliance and will take up one by one. 16:29:38 Nick, agreed - we're on the same page 16:30:28 justin: I invite folks to take a look at TCS and the disregard signal. I found the language a little confusing. But if the WG is happy with it as it is, let's not make it more complicated. 16:30:29 yeah, if everyone is fine with the document, let's send out an email to confirm and then close it? 16:30:45 ... I will send out an email to the group and point to this issue. 16:31:30 q+ 16:31:37 Topic: charter 16:31:48 ack ws 16:31:58 kj has joined #dnt 16:31:58 zakim, take up agendum 4 16:31:58 agendum 4. "Charter extension" taken up [from ninja] 16:32:07 What happens if a majority of the group doesn't want to extend? 16:32:47 wseltzer: We noticed that our current charter will end on 30 April this year. Our current work plan based on the poll and the discussion in the group 16:33:17 ... goes up to June 2015 as a revised schedule. 16:34:03 ... The director suggested to extend the charter not only up to this date but up to December 2015 to stay around longer to cover errata etc. 16:34:25 justin: What would happen if we do not extend the charter. 16:34:59 wseltzer: It is the director's decision. If the charter would not be extended the group would be out of charter. 16:35:12 justin: Could the WG formally object? 16:35:23 Could we change the Charter to simply complete the TPE and leave it at that? 16:35:31 What is critical mass? 16:36:07 wseltzer: Working Group members are not able to tell other WG members to stop their work. If we have still interest in the work the WG will continue. 16:36:12 Its been 6 months since then 16:36:24 Many participants are no longer with the working group 16:36:37 If we took a poll now I believe the outcome would be very different 16:36:47 3 or 4? 16:37:09 How else can new facts come out if we don't take a poll? 16:37:14 justin: Answering Shane's question. Decision on plan to move forward was to advance TPE first and then continue on compliance. Not inclined on do another poll. If there is no new information. 16:37:38 q+ 16:37:51 ... Currently W3C and the chairs and at least part of the WG feel it is worthwhile to continue the discussion on compliance. 16:37:55 ack dw 16:38:13 It seems like there is interest in such a poll. Am I wrong? 16:38:27 TTWG got down to 4 members at one point (maybe 5) 16:38:31 dwainberg: Wendy said that there needs to be critical mass. How many people are required? 16:39:04 the group can decide on its own work at any time; the charter is just a formal matter of whether the Consortium allows the group to work on things in its charter 16:39:22 wseltzer: We need different stakeholders in the process. Although it is not the volume from the beginning. Most important are the actual implementers. 16:39:32 dsinger, I think we prefer more than 5 :) although I think the preference is to have 10 to 15 people 16:39:47 dwainberg: Are you saying the advertisers keeping this alive? 16:40:10 ... Would our leaving have the impact of terminating the WG? 16:40:25 If less than 10 people on today's participants raise their hand to suggest they want to continue work on the TCS, does that give the co-chairs a meaningful signal? 16:40:41 As none of the co-chairs represent industry, we'll continue to see this disconnect. 16:40:58 justin: The intention from the beginning was to work on a standard for a DNT signal. Has this intention changed? 16:41:28 q+ 16:41:38 ack npd 16:41:45 dwainberg: Wendy said one of the factors keeping this alive is our participation. It's smaller than ever, mostly just me. It may make sense to me to drop off the group 16:42:03 both participation and implementation are voluntary... 16:42:36 npdoty, the advertising industry has been railroaded at every step in the development of these specs 16:42:42 +??P62 16:42:50 npdoty: Sorry to hear that people feel that they have no choice but to be here. It is a voluntary standard. We had and need a variety of stakeholders. I was optimistic that we have sufficient interest from the industry to do the work. 16:43:00 zakim, P62 is me 16:43:00 sorry, adrianba, I do not recognize a party named 'P62' 16:43:05 zakim, ??P62 is me 16:43:05 +adrianba; got it 16:43:10 I think we disagree on the meaning of "compelled to be here" 16:43:26 justin: q? 16:43:31 q? 16:43:43 Not a poll - a "hum" 16:43:48 let's not conflate interest with agreement with the direction the chairs and staff have taken this initiative. 16:44:09 Many things have changed in the past 6-7 months 16:44:10 q? 16:44:15 justin: We will not ask for a new poll on motivation. We did this in October. We will still follow this decision. 16:44:29 Seeing that the co-chairs are not taking working group feedback, its difficult to see a fair path forward. 16:44:37 All in favor of not continuing work on the TCS? 16:44:40 +1 16:44:45 +1 16:44:49 I'm hearing from Justin, that it's not about critical mass... "we are moving forward" (period) 16:44:56 justin: We will do a better job to put up the agenda earlier next week. I will send out a note to the group about the D signal. 16:45:02 +1 16:45:25 +1 16:45:33 -[FTC] 16:45:34 -WaltMichel 16:45:35 -RichardWeaver 16:45:36 -[CDT] 16:45:36 -rvaneijk 16:45:36 -robsherman 16:45:37 -Chris_Pedigo 16:45:37 -dwainberg 16:45:37 -MattHayes 16:45:38 -WileyS 16:45:38 -Wendy 16:45:38 -[Microsoft] 16:45:39 -schunter 16:45:39 so to be clear, the call was cut short 16:45:39 thx 16:45:39 -vinay 16:45:40 -Brooks 16:45:41 -Ari 16:45:42 -npdoty 16:45:42 -adrianba 16:45:43 by the Chair 16:45:43 -[Apple] 16:45:43 - +1.201.530.aacc 16:45:43 -vincent 16:45:45 -moneill2 16:45:46 ... If you want to keep discussing going forward, please do so on the mailing list. Will keep the call focused. 16:45:52 -Ninja 16:45:54 -Chris_IAB 16:45:55 -Jack_Hobaugh 16:45:58 -hefferjr 16:46:03 -Peder_Magee 16:46:17 justin: bye 16:46:26 Zakim, list attendees 16:46:26 As of this point the attendees have been Ninja, Wendy, ChrisIAB, hefferjr, dsinger, Jack_Hobaugh, RichardWeaver, Peder_Magee, rvaneijk, dwainberg, npdoty, justin, WileyS, 16:46:30 ... +1.323.253.aaaa, Chris_Pedigo, Ari, schunter, MattHayes, [FTC], Brooks, Chris_IAB, [Microsoft], +1.202.370.aabb, robsherman, vinay, WaltMichel, +1.201.530.aacc, hwest, 16:46:30 ... moneill2, Fielding, +1.312.923.aadd, mecallahan, vincent, adrianba 16:46:31 rrsagent, please draft the minutes 16:46:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/04/16-dnt-minutes.html npdoty 16:47:05 rrsagent, make minutes public 16:47:05 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', fielding. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:47:26 fielding, the minutes are usually public for this channel 16:47:39 yeah, I was just too fast 16:47:44 -mecallahan 16:48:04 -Fielding 16:48:06 T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended 16:48:06 Attendees were Ninja, Wendy, ChrisIAB, hefferjr, dsinger, Jack_Hobaugh, RichardWeaver, Peder_Magee, rvaneijk, dwainberg, npdoty, justin, WileyS, +1.323.253.aaaa, Chris_Pedigo, Ari, 16:48:06 ... schunter, MattHayes, [FTC], Brooks, Chris_IAB, [Microsoft], +1.202.370.aabb, robsherman, vinay, WaltMichel, +1.201.530.aacc, hwest, moneill2, Fielding, +1.312.923.aadd, 16:48:07 ... mecallahan, vincent, adrianba