15:49:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:49:44 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/07/23-dnt-irc
15:49:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:49:46 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dnt
15:49:48 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be TRACK
15:49:48 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
15:49:49 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:49:49 <trackbot> Date: 23 July 2014
15:55:24 <eberkower> eberkower has joined #dnt
15:56:22 <JackHobaugh> JackHobaugh has joined #dnt
15:56:23 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #dnt
15:57:20 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
15:58:09 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:58:15 <sidstamm> sidstamm has joined #dnt
15:58:16 <Zakim> +npdoty
15:58:51 <wseltzer> regrets+ wseltzer
15:58:59 <Zakim> +[Apple]
15:59:06 <dsinger> zakim, [apple] has dsinger
15:59:06 <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
15:59:40 <WaltMichel> WaltMichel has joined #DNT
15:59:47 <Zakim> +[FTC]
16:00:13 <justin_> justin_ has joined #dnt
16:00:35 <moneill2> moneill2 has joined #dnt
16:00:38 <Zakim> +Fielding
16:00:40 <Zakim> +hefferjr
16:00:58 <npdoty> agenda+ issue-203 use of tracking in compliance
16:01:04 <npdoty> agenda+ issue-97 link shortening
16:01:07 <Zakim> +WileyS
16:01:11 <npdoty> agenda+ issue-188 deidentification
16:01:17 <WileyS> WileyS has joined #dnt
16:01:23 <npdoty> agenda+ issue-234 personalization
16:01:26 <Zakim> +Jack_Hobaugh
16:01:27 <npdoty> agenda+ aob
16:01:29 <Zakim> +vincent
16:01:29 <Zakim> + +1.646.654.aaaa
16:01:34 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
16:01:38 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
16:01:39 <sidstamm> Zakim, Mozilla has me
16:01:39 <Zakim> +sidstamm; got it
16:01:47 <eberkower> Zakim, aaaa is eberkower
16:01:47 <Zakim> +eberkower; got it
16:01:51 <Zakim> +WaltMichel
16:01:51 <npdoty> chair: justin
16:02:01 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see npdoty, [Apple], [FTC], Fielding, hefferjr, WileyS, Jack_Hobaugh, vincent, eberkower, [Mozilla], WaltMichel
16:02:02 <eberkower> Zakim, mute me, please
16:02:03 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:02:03 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:02:03 <Zakim> eberkower should now be muted
16:02:05 <Zakim> +kulick
16:02:23 <kulick> kulick has joined #dnt
16:02:39 <robsherman> robsherman has joined #dnt
16:02:42 <Zakim> +justin
16:02:45 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
16:02:46 <justin_> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see npdoty, [Apple], [FTC], Fielding, hefferjr, WileyS, Jack_Hobaugh, vincent, eberkower (muted), [Mozilla], WaltMichel, kulick, justin
16:02:48 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:02:48 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:03:07 <dsinger> zakim, agenda?
16:03:07 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
16:03:08 <Zakim> 1. issue-203 use of tracking in compliance [from npdoty]
16:03:08 <Zakim> 2. issue-97 link shortening [from npdoty]
16:03:08 <Zakim> 3. issue-188 deidentification [from npdoty]
16:03:08 <Zakim> 4. issue-234 personalization [from npdoty]
16:03:08 <Zakim> 5. aob [from npdoty]
16:03:34 <Chris_M> Chris_M has joined #dnt
16:03:42 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:03:46 <justin_> zakim, choose a scribe
16:03:46 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose justin
16:03:56 <moneill2> zakim, [IPCaller] is me
16:03:56 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
16:04:08 <justin_> zakim, choose a scribe
16:04:08 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose sidstamm
16:04:19 <npdoty> scribenick: sidstamm
16:04:21 <Zakim> +??P18
16:04:27 <Chris_M> just joined the call
16:04:38 <sidstamm> justin_: calls for objections.. one we reached decision, another is hard to make decision
16:04:55 <sidstamm> ... on the limitations on first parties (data append) proposal to add language
16:05:03 <Zakim> +Chris_Pedigo
16:05:06 <npdoty> Zakim, ??p18 is Chris_M
16:05:06 <Zakim> +Chris_M; got it
16:05:12 <sidstamm> ... chairs decided stronger objections were against adding that language, since it goes beyond def'n of tracking
16:05:24 <ChrisPedigoOPA> ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:05:35 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
16:05:44 <Zakim> +Brooks
16:06:07 <sidstamm> ... second one was on context separation.  Can big first party use it when acting as a third party?
16:06:27 <kj> kj has joined #dnt
16:06:33 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:06:40 <adrianba> zakim, [Microsoft] is me
16:06:40 <Zakim> +adrianba; got it
16:06:52 <sidstamm> ... there were related issues around personalization that need to be addressed first
16:07:14 <sidstamm> ... second issue that made it hard was specifically around first vs third party
16:07:24 <sidstamm> ... that kind of ties into today's first issue, the use of "Tracking" in compliance
16:07:44 <sidstamm> ... fielding suggested maybe we don't need separate rules for first/third parties, indicating maybe we just shouldn't blend any contexts
16:08:00 <sidstamm> ... was challenging for the chairs to assess rules based on 1st and 3rd party
16:08:15 <sidstamm> ... so we are delaying the result of that until issue 203 and personalization issues are addressed.
16:08:32 <npdoty> Zakim, take up agendum 1
16:08:32 <Zakim> agendum 1. "issue-203 use of tracking in compliance" taken up [from npdoty]
16:08:37 <cOlsen> cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:08:52 <sidstamm> ... On issue 203, question for fielding, have you had the chance to look at what new compliance rules would look like?
16:08:56 <Chapell> Chapell has joined #DNT
16:09:02 <sidstamm> fielding: haven't written yet, would you like me to write first?
16:09:05 <dsinger> issue-203?
16:09:05 <trackbot> issue-203 -- Use of "tracking" in third-party compliance -- open
16:09:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/203
16:09:10 <sidstamm> justin_: yes, please write.
16:09:28 <npdoty> I made edits yesterday (action-454, regarding qualifiers) but haven't completed what we suggested I do with tracking status values (action-455)
16:09:30 <sidstamm> ... last week some folks were concerned about what it looks like, so text would be helpful.
16:09:32 <Zakim> +[FTC.a]
16:10:20 <justin_> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Tracking_Third_Party_Compliance
16:10:22 <Zakim> +Jeff
16:10:24 <sidstamm> ... we'll need a proposal about the qualifiers
16:10:38 <npdoty> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#qualifiers
16:10:41 <sidstamm> ... nick, did you get the qualifiers ported?
16:10:44 <sidstamm> npdoty: yep, see link
16:10:54 <sidstamm> ... but that doesn't cover when to use the status values
16:10:57 <sidstamm> ... still working on that
16:11:02 <sidstamm> justin_: who will do it?
16:11:06 <sidstamm> npdoty: I will get to it
16:11:16 <Zakim> +robsherman
16:11:27 <sidstamm> justin_: I'll encourage folks to look at the new qualifiers language
16:11:39 <sidstamm> ... and when npdoty provides the rest of his text, look at that too
16:11:49 <sidstamm> ... once we have more about context, there will be more to discuss
16:11:55 <justin_> q?
16:11:56 <sidstamm> ... Any questions about all that?
16:12:17 <npdoty> dsinger, did you have any updates on possible merging of yours and fielding's text?
16:12:28 <sidstamm> ... Ok.  Will wait to see the new text from fielding/npdoty.  May impact on the structure of the document, but may or may not have impact on individual companies.  HOpefully will discuss next week.
16:12:33 <sidstamm> ... next issue is link shorteners.
16:12:35 <npdoty> Zakim, take up agendum 2
16:12:35 <Zakim> agendum 2. "issue-97 link shortening" taken up [from npdoty]
16:12:37 <justin_> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposals_on_link_shorteners_and_ID_providers
16:12:47 <sidstamm> ... scheduled to go for CFE today on link shorteners
16:12:50 <dsinger> to npdoty: on which issue? issue-188 is still going in side emails
16:13:07 <npdoty> dsinger, I meant on issue 203 (use of "tracking")
16:13:09 <sidstamm> ... rift in the group about whether link shortners are first or third party
16:13:29 <sidstamm> ... walter/nick worked on various iterations of language including some explanation about party-ness of link shorteners
16:13:50 <sidstamm> ... walter wanted more time, so just as an update, they're going to come up with a final concrete proposal (probably not mentioning parties)
16:13:57 <sidstamm> ... and when that gets finalized, we'll bring to the group for CFE.
16:14:01 <npdoty> q+
16:14:03 <justin_> q?
16:14:07 <dsinger> to npdoty: no update right now
16:14:09 <justin_> ack npd
16:14:21 <sidstamm> npdoty: is there a rift?  I haven't seen other proposals
16:14:33 <sidstamm> ... if we are wordsmithing, no problem, but if not we should get it on the wiki
16:15:02 <sidstamm> justin_: I think at least shane has objected and said the service provider should not be considered a party to that transaction
16:15:03 <WileyS> On the grounds that a user has full view of the link prior to interaction.
16:15:03 <justin_> q?
16:15:14 <WileyS> Same standard we set for widgets
16:15:22 <WileyS> And for 1st parties generally
16:15:22 <sidstamm> ... and I think there have been others who objected to that perspective
16:15:26 <WileyS> +q
16:15:33 <justin_> ack wil
16:15:38 <sidstamm> WileyS: my proposal is that we don't speak to this
16:15:48 <sidstamm> ... multiple parties stated the same thing.  this group should remain silent on this topic
16:15:58 <npdoty> okay, I hadn't realized the suggestion was separate silence, I'll add that to the wiki
16:15:58 <sidstamm> ... instead of attempting to add normative or nonnorm text on this
16:16:31 <sidstamm> ... when we look at principles of user knowledge/discoverability/interaction, we take the position that if the user has the ability to understand what they're doing
16:16:35 <sidstamm> ... then it's a first party interaction
16:16:47 <sidstamm> ... if they see a link shortner and click on it, they know they're interacting with the link shortening service
16:17:01 <sidstamm> ... the more core elements we started with were the invisible third parties
16:17:10 <sidstamm> ... and my proposal is non-text.
16:17:13 <npdoty> thanks, I'll add to the wiki
16:17:23 <sidstamm> justin_: and you think the existing text is sufficent for invisible redirectors?
16:17:25 <sidstamm> WileyS: yep
16:17:38 <justin_> q?
16:17:45 <sidstamm> justin_: anything else on this issue?
16:17:48 <justin_> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Deidentification
16:17:53 <sidstamm> ... two more issues.  De-identification, first.
16:18:15 <sidstamm> ... operative proposals (4)
16:18:17 <npdoty> WileyS, added quickly here: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposals_on_link_shorteners_and_ID_providers#Proposal_5:_Silence feel free to correct/update
16:18:29 <sidstamm> ... three part test
16:18:36 <sidstamm> ... from david.
16:18:53 <sidstamm> ... roy's takes away contractual stuff (?)
16:19:07 <sidstamm> ... I think roy had a good point that if you publicize data and it's clearly de-identified
16:19:15 <sidstamm> ... no way you can get everyone to agree to not re-identify it
16:19:22 <npdoty> Zakim, take up agendum 3
16:19:22 <Zakim> agendum 3. "issue-188 deidentification" taken up [from npdoty]
16:19:22 <dsinger> You can surely say “this data is made available under the condition it not be used to identify…”
16:19:23 <sidstamm> ... can we remove that, david?
16:19:39 <sidstamm> ... david/roy, want to take up now?
16:20:12 <sidstamm> dsinger: maybe we can say this is a characteristic about de-identified data
16:20:28 <sidstamm> ... maybe it should be made available on the condition you don't try to identify people in it
16:20:38 <sidstamm> ... rather than a contract, maybe the characteristic of the data is that restriction.
16:20:44 <npdoty> q+ to ask about aggregate vs. de-identified
16:20:46 <sidstamm> justin_: would that mean there's a legal disclaimer on all released data?
16:20:58 <sidstamm> dsinger: you would probably put that somewhere
16:21:06 <justin_> ack npd
16:21:06 <Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to ask about aggregate vs. de-identified
16:21:22 <sidstamm> npdoty: if the case in question is where you aggregate a large number of records
16:21:31 <sidstamm> ... then it can be made public without an agreement, because there's no risk
16:21:49 <sidstamm> ... should we instead say either "aggregate the data or put on the disclaimer"?
16:22:13 <fielding> q+
16:22:15 <sidstamm> justin_: two part test, right?  For stuff you're pretty sure can't be re-identified, you are ok, but wouldn't hurt to add legal protection with the condition
16:22:17 <dsinger> we could say that the publisher either accepts responsbility for any re-identification, or prohibits it
16:22:31 <sidstamm> ... but for stuff you're sure about, you wouldn't have to put it in place.  not sure if feasible.
16:22:33 <npdoty> define "aggregate" as separate from "deidentified" (which could follow an FTC-style test, which many of the proposals follow)
16:22:39 <sidstamm> dsinger: maybe either you accept responsibility or you prohibit it.
16:23:05 <sidstamm> ... if you're completely confident, there's no reason for the restriction
16:23:12 <justin_> ack field
16:23:32 <sidstamm> fielding: only issue is that if we truly de-identify data, it should be impossible to re-identify
16:23:41 <sidstamm> ... so this concern is understandable if we don't de-identify right
16:23:51 <sidstamm> dsinger: long history of people thinking it's de-identified, but were wrong
16:24:03 <npdoty> "reasonable level of justified confidence" (current text) isn't the same as "impossible"
16:24:05 <sidstamm> ... so we should add the condition that others *can't* reidentify
16:24:18 <sidstamm> fielding: so we're saying "this has to be impossible and a contract in place"?
16:24:28 <JackHobaugh> seems like we are mixing de-identification with anonymization
16:24:31 <sidstamm> dsinger: no, you have to _think_ it's impossible and add a safety net condition
16:24:42 <npdoty> I think that's driven by a history of people being incorrect when they believe data to be de-identified
16:24:43 <sidstamm> justin_: high level of confidence plus policy protection, right?
16:25:12 <sidstamm> dsinger: the situation I want to avoid is that someone makes the data available, disclaims all responsibility, someone else de-identifies it, and they collude to get around these guidelines
16:25:34 <npdoty> JackHobaugh, I think we've tended not to use "anonymous" because of lots of previous misapplications of the term. but I think "aggregate" might actually be the relevant term here
16:25:37 <sidstamm> justin_: if they release that data you would say there would be a proof burden, but not sure it's much worse than just secret data transfer
16:25:43 <justin_> q?
16:25:57 <sidstamm> fielding: if it said "cannot be released except under contract or if data is truly anaonymous"... then we have to define "anonymous"
16:26:12 <sidstamm> dsinger: that's why I was leaning towards just requiring someone to accept or pass-on responsibility
16:26:28 <sidstamm> justin_: even if you're "winking", you still have responsibility, right?
16:26:44 <sidstamm> ... maybe we take this to the list and iron it out.
16:26:53 <sidstamm> dsinger: I'll try to phrase something along the lines of what I'm thinking.
16:27:01 <sidstamm> ... not sure if it'll fly with everybody, but I'd like to try.
16:27:05 <npdoty> FTC folks on the phone, any interest in speaking about your de-identification approach and aggregation?
16:27:18 <sidstamm> justin_: those are two. vincent had proposed language on the article 29 def'n.
16:27:35 <sidstamm> vincent: I think I had responded to most of the questions
16:28:10 <sidstamm> ... while there are technical guarantees that it is not identifiable, we would not need to require contracts.  But the idea was trying to provide some guarantee that you wouldn't be able to re-identify the data
16:28:14 <justin_> q?
16:28:23 <sidstamm> ... to help with assesment
16:28:40 <sidstamm> justin_: to add extra parameters since re-identification isn't particularly knowable.
16:28:51 <sidstamm> ... maybe this can be worked on the list
16:29:03 <sidstamm> ... or maybe this is an effect of two legal regimes with two sets of requirements
16:29:08 <sidstamm> ... or maybe there's no way around that
16:29:14 <sidstamm> .. will legal regimes trump here anyway?
16:29:16 <justin_> q?
16:29:30 <sidstamm> vincent: I want to provide smaller granularity on the requirements
16:29:56 <sidstamm> justin_: roy's saying "make sure it's deidentified" and you're adding "how", right?
16:30:00 <sidstamm> ... different ways to approach it
16:30:17 <sidstamm> ... not trying to say which is better but I don't think we're going to work it out in this call
16:30:23 <sidstamm> ... lets keep talking on the list?
16:30:40 <sidstamm> ... Last we have the proposal from JackHobaugh from NAI
16:30:59 <npdoty> both JackHobaugh and vincent are proposing different substantive requirements to define when something is really de-identified (based on HIPAA or Art. 29), right?
16:31:02 <sidstamm> ... more long and detailed and somewhat mirrorred in HIPPA's approach, saying you can subtract out certain elements and that's good enough
16:31:35 <justin_> q?
16:31:37 <npdoty> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Deidentification#Expert_review_or_safe_harbor
16:31:41 <sidstamm> ... somewhat similar to the "yellow" approach shane proposed last summer in sunnyvale, I think
16:31:53 <sidstamm> ... don't think that's likely to be merged with another proposal.  Any questions?
16:32:00 <sidstamm> ... Ok.  Last issue is personalization.
16:32:06 <npdoty> Zakim, take up agendum 4
16:32:06 <Zakim> agendum 4. "issue-234 personalization" taken up [from npdoty]
16:32:07 <sidstamm> ... I grouped a bunch of issues together here.
16:32:14 <justin_> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Remove_personalization_prohibition
16:32:15 <vincent> npdoty, from what I understand, the def I propose is jsut a possible solution to meet the requirement of Roy's definition
16:32:36 <sidstamm> justin_: one of the ideas that came out last summer was the idea that (interrupt me if I'm wrong) there's a sense that we can't control the DNT signal and there's no way to verify it
16:33:11 <sidstamm> ... so maybe we aren't prepared to turn off all behavioral advertising when DNT is on and maybe instead we should do some sort of middleground (clense URLs or do data hygene) but some level of targeting should be allowed
16:33:19 <sidstamm> ... in oct when we were asking for language suggestions, we got a bunch
16:33:41 <sidstamm> ... Jack proposed a few around this issue that DNT should not turn off behavioral.
16:33:48 <Chris_M> As I remember, this was actually first proposed by Jonathan Mayer... DNT does not = do not personalize
16:34:00 <sidstamm> ... There's a general permitted use saying you can't personalize apart from some specifics
16:34:19 <sidstamm> ... david wainberg also proposed some things should be allowed
16:34:40 <sidstamm> ... Jack proposed something about maintaining history, but keep audience segments and can use the URL for permitted uses (?)
16:34:54 <sidstamm> ... one thing to talk about is removing profiling from frequency capping?
16:34:54 <JackHobaugh> Justin, I think your summary is correct.
16:35:00 <npdoty> regarding 236: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Remove_profiling_prohibition_for_frequency_capping
16:35:04 <justin_> q?
16:35:08 <sidstamm> Unfortunatly the scribe didn't capture all that, sorry
16:35:11 <npdoty> regarding 234: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Remove_personalization_prohibition
16:35:26 <npdoty> the scribe's best effort is appreciated.
16:35:30 <dnt> dnt has joined #dnt
16:35:38 <npdoty> q+
16:35:41 <sidstamm> ?: permitted uses and profiling are not exactly non-overlapping circles, may not be accurate when taking in the document as a whole
16:35:56 <npdoty> s/?:/JackHobaugh:/
16:36:05 <justin_> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/236
16:36:06 <sidstamm> justin_: having the prohibition on frequency capping doesn't make sense?
16:36:10 <sidstamm> JackHobaugh: yes
16:36:19 <dsinger> q+ to discuss in-request use of data
16:36:38 <dsinger> q-
16:36:41 <sidstamm> npdoty: I am trying to get clarification from jack if his proposals are just editorial or if we should have a new set of requirements
16:36:59 <sidstamm> JackHobaugh: I was suggesting it doesn't fit in "frequency capping", if it needs to be addressed
16:37:06 <sidstamm> ... but many of these issues are connected.
16:37:18 <sidstamm> ... if you're in an area talking about permissions, you shouldn't attack it from a prohibition side also
16:37:28 <sidstamm> justin_: that's helpful.  Looking at the language on freq capping
16:37:49 <npdoty> I believe the thinking was that there may be certain requirements in order to fit into a permission
16:37:53 <sidstamm> ... Generally, you can still collect for frequency capping but must not construct profiles or alter user experience
16:38:06 <sidstamm> ... So you're not allowed to log for profiling, but can do contextual ads.
16:38:34 <sidstamm> ... idea is that if you can infer based on ads you show, you shouldn't be creating meta-profiles based on this inferred data (from freq capping)
16:38:50 <sidstamm> ... but the general prohibition on personalization would address it.  But if some is allowed, that's inconsistent with the rest of the doc.
16:39:01 <justin_> q?
16:39:04 <justin_> q- npdoty
16:39:07 <sidstamm> ... not sure why that language was there in the first place.
16:39:39 <sidstamm> justin_: this was controversial when initially proposed last summer, but lots of folks think we need to consider it.
16:39:48 <sidstamm> ... Are there other issues we should loop in with this?
16:40:01 <dsinger> q+ to mention in-context actions
16:40:02 <npdoty> I thought maybe 236 was just a suggestion to rely on the "No Personalization" general requirement rather than permitted use by permitted use, but 234 also suggests that we drop the general requirement section
16:40:10 <DNT_> DNT_ has joined #dnt
16:40:10 <sidstamm> ... if folks want to suggest refinements or new language, go ahead.  I will go to list with specific sentence cutting.
16:40:11 <justin_> ack ds
16:40:11 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to mention in-context actions
16:40:29 <sidstamm> dsinger: We shouldn't worry about use of data in a transaction.  That's not tracking.
16:40:44 <sidstamm> ... tracking is about recording, not reacting to data in the transaction.
16:40:49 <sidstamm> justin_: I think we all agree about that.
16:41:30 <sidstamm> dsinger: personalization based on the fact that you're using Firefox and your IP says California, that has nothing to do with this.
16:41:37 <sidstamm> justin_: but remembering it later may be in scope.
16:41:45 <justin_> q?
16:41:48 <sidstamm> ... I don't think there are disputes on that.
16:41:55 <sidstamm> ... ok.  So I think that's it for today.
16:42:09 <sidstamm> ... lets try to keep working on de-identification.  David just put something to the list.
16:42:10 <WileyS> There is a more fundamental question as to the scope of DNT.  If the scope was limited to the historical retention of cross-site data (different contexts), then scoring could still occur (prior to de-identification).
16:42:35 <sidstamm> justin_: if we can come up with fewer alternatives, the better.
16:42:48 <sidstamm> ... want to see what roy/david can come up with about how tracking is used (wrt parties)
16:43:10 <npdoty> Zakim, take up agendum 5
16:43:10 <Zakim> agendum 5. "aob" taken up [from npdoty]
16:43:15 <sidstamm> ... one other issue is that we are required by W3C policy to submit working draft
16:43:33 <sidstamm> ... we should wait until the context issue is ironed out before doing a snapshot.  Nick?
16:43:44 <sidstamm> npdoty: we're required to do it every three months.  Our due date is in a couple of weeks.
16:43:53 <sidstamm> ... if it's gonna take longer, that should just go to the next WD.
16:43:58 <fielding> I can do a couple weeks (for TPE)
16:44:08 <sidstamm> justin_: maybe we can put a pointer in the doc saying we're working on this.
16:44:18 <justin_> q?
16:44:20 <sidstamm> ... I don't mind publishing with that caveat.
16:44:24 <sidstamm> ... objections?
16:44:38 <sidstamm> npdoty: I'll add a note highlighting that issue and send it around looking for concerns about publishing.
16:44:51 <sidstamm> justin_: thanks.  And thanks roy for committing to quick turnaround.
16:44:54 <npdoty> thanks
16:44:55 <sidstamm> ... anything else?
16:44:59 <sidstamm> ... thank you Sid
16:45:04 <sidstamm> ... for lots of words
16:45:10 <sidstamm> my fingers urt
16:45:12 <sidstamm> ... bye!
16:45:15 <Zakim> -[FTC.a]
16:45:15 <Zakim> -WaltMichel
16:45:16 <Zakim> -adrianba
16:45:16 <Zakim> -Chris_Pedigo
16:45:16 <Zakim> -robsherman
16:45:17 <Zakim> -Chris_M
16:45:17 <Zakim> -[FTC]
16:45:17 <Zakim> -hefferjr
16:45:17 <Zakim> -Jeff
16:45:18 <Zakim> -justin
16:45:19 <Zakim> -Jack_Hobaugh
16:45:19 <Zakim> -npdoty
16:45:20 <Zakim> -Brooks
16:45:20 <Zakim> -WileyS
16:45:21 <Zakim> -kulick
16:45:22 <Zakim> -[Apple]
16:45:22 <Zakim> -moneill2
16:45:23 <npdoty> Zakim, list attendees
16:45:23 <Zakim> -vincent
16:45:23 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been npdoty, dsinger, [FTC], Fielding, hefferjr, WileyS, Jack_Hobaugh, vincent, +1.646.654.aaaa, sidstamm, eberkower, WaltMichel, kulick,
16:45:23 <Zakim> ... justin, moneill2, Chris_Pedigo, Chris_M, Brooks, adrianba, Jeff, robsherman
16:45:24 <Zakim> -Fielding
16:45:25 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
16:45:34 <npdoty> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
16:45:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/07/23-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
17:26:48 <Zakim> -eberkower
17:26:49 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:26:49 <Zakim> Attendees were npdoty, dsinger, [FTC], Fielding, hefferjr, WileyS, Jack_Hobaugh, vincent, +1.646.654.aaaa, sidstamm, eberkower, WaltMichel, kulick, justin, moneill2, Chris_Pedigo,
17:26:49 <Zakim> ... Chris_M, Brooks, adrianba, Jeff, robsherman
19:34:32 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt