16:54:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
16:54:52 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/12/17-dnt-irc
16:54:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:54:54 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dnt
16:54:56 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be TRACK
16:54:56 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
16:54:57 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
16:54:57 <trackbot> Date: 17 December 2014
16:58:57 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
16:59:05 <Zakim> +npdoty
17:00:41 <justin> justin has joined #dnt
17:01:10 <npdoty> regrets+ schunter
17:01:27 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:01:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see npdoty
17:01:57 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #dnt
17:02:04 <Zakim> +Chris_Pedigo
17:02:13 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
17:02:15 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:02:22 <Zakim> +Wendy
17:02:23 <moneill2> zakim,[IPCaller] is me
17:02:24 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
17:02:30 <Zakim> +[Apple]
17:02:40 <dsinger> zakim, [apple] has dsinger
17:02:40 <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
17:02:45 <Zakim> +[FTC]
17:02:50 <Zakim> +Fielding
17:03:26 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
17:03:30 <WileyS> WileyS has joined #dnt
17:03:45 <Zakim> +justin
17:04:13 <Zakim> +WileyS
17:04:36 <Carl_Cargill> Carl_Cargill has joined #dnt
17:04:37 <Zakim> +vincent
17:04:49 <Zakim> +Carl_Cargill
17:05:22 <wseltzer> scribenick: wseltzer
17:05:45 <dsinger> zakim, agenda?
17:05:45 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
17:05:52 <wseltzer> justin: First issue, gateway, tracking status value
17:05:52 <dsinger> issue-262?
17:05:52 <trackbot> issue-262 -- guidance regarding server responses and timing -- pending review
17:05:52 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/262
17:06:10 <wseltzer> ... Shane, any comments?
17:06:20 <wseltzer> ... Main issue whether we'll allow gateways to signal N or T
17:06:37 <WileyS> +q
17:06:38 <wseltzer> ... Roy said, sure, N, if they can say with conficence everyone theyre sharing with agrees not to track
17:06:58 <wseltzer> ... Vincent sent a note this morning (US time), saying it shoudl send G regardless
17:07:03 <fielding> removing those is fine with me … I was just trying to capture all the requested input
17:07:08 <justin> ack wileys
17:07:09 <WileyS> Agree to Roy only on "G", agree with Rob & T on removing T and N - disagree with Mike
17:07:26 <wseltzer> WileyS: I agree with Roy on G
17:07:33 <justin> T = vomcemt
17:07:34 <wseltzer> ... I agree with Rob and Vincent on removing T and N
17:07:42 <wseltzer> ... G is a safer signal
17:07:42 <justin> s/vomcemt/vincent
17:07:59 <kulick> kulick has joined #dnt
17:08:00 <wseltzer> ... There may be edge cases where T or N work, but don't know that we want to go that route
17:08:08 <wseltzer> ... Disagree with Mike's comment from earlier today
17:08:16 <wseltzer> ... Want to keep the gateway as neutral as possible
17:08:32 <wseltzer> ... they don't build their own profiles; cross-site tracking only to degree they meet permitted uses
17:08:34 <moneill2> +q
17:08:45 <npdoty> moneill2, did you have a problem with just using the Tk response header from the bid winner?
17:08:47 <wseltzer> i/First issue,/Topic: TPE Last Call Comments/
17:09:01 <Zakim> +kulick
17:09:12 <wseltzer> WileyS: gateway not trying to take position for sites it services; let them speak for themselves
17:09:25 <wseltzer> ... spoke with other gateways, none retains info in a bid-loss scenario
17:09:27 <npdoty> thanks for checking on that, WileyS
17:09:45 <wseltzer> ... would only send G if if felt bid losers are retaining no tracking data; bid winner will respond for itself.
17:10:00 <wseltzer> ... That seems shortest way to say all 3 elements
17:10:16 <wseltzer> justin: So, you'd be fine with proposed deletion of 2 paragraphs, ok with Roy's language?
17:10:28 <wseltzer> WileyS: Yes, of course needing to see final language
17:10:38 <wseltzer> justin: delta between Roy's description and permitted uses
17:11:22 <wseltzer> ... we should all be on same page on what gateway is permitted to retain
17:11:22 <WileyS> Gateways faciliate frequency capping
17:11:32 <fielding> ah, oky
17:11:32 <wseltzer> ... I thought other folks weren't expecting permitted uses by gateway
17:11:35 <justin> ack mon
17:11:48 <wseltzer> moneill2: 2 aspects in what I put on the list
17:12:03 <wseltzer> ... gateway has to extend preference
17:12:32 <fielding> q+
17:12:33 <wseltzer> ... but it can't tell difference between site-specific and general preference
17:12:40 <npdoty> I thought Roy’s text said you need to forward the “expressed preference”
17:12:48 <vincent> WileyS, could we have example of contract/ToS  of ad-exchange to check the status of service provider? try to find some but it's hard to find except for doubeclick
17:13:09 <wseltzer> ... difference between gateway and normal situation is that there's no element on the page by which user can ID gateway
17:13:56 <wseltzer> ... consider polaris technical blocking, on what elements will it apply?
17:14:23 <WileyS> Vincent, those contracts are covered by NDA so I'm not able to distribute
17:15:04 <wseltzer> ... use the controller property as way for gateway to tell UAs which parties have received the data
17:15:09 <npdoty> I think a server can use the controller property that way right now, if it wants to
17:15:32 <wseltzer> justin: vision of G....
17:15:56 <wseltzer> ... if the gateway is sending info and don't know what recipients will do with it, what shoudl they send?
17:16:02 <wseltzer> ... T, as Roy said?
17:16:06 <justin> ack fielding
17:16:09 <vincent> q+
17:16:10 <vincent> WileyS, is there a generic template (not an actual contract) that could use?
17:16:33 <wseltzer> fielding: to Mike's concerns. When users sends DNT:1 to gateway, it's saying "you can share with other parties"
17:16:38 <npdoty> I think even without that paragraph in question, the server can send “T” back if it’s going to be tracking
17:16:48 <wseltzer> ... so it doesn't matter whether it's site-specific or general
17:16:58 <justin> Fair point, thanks npdoty, I think that's right.
17:17:09 <justin> Though not sure why we shouldn't explicitly say it in the document.
17:17:13 <moneill2> +q
17:17:19 <vincent> q-
17:17:20 <justin> ack mo
17:18:26 <npdoty> q+
17:18:39 <vincent> could the gateway get a webwide exception anyway?
17:18:43 <WileyS> Site-wide would cover the exchange use case!
17:18:55 <npdoty> q+ on the T response value
17:18:58 <WileyS> site-wide covers all parties on that site
17:19:15 <WileyS> Site X and it's partners...
17:19:15 <dsinger> If the hosting site (Newspaper) has a site exception, all 3rd parties on that site get dnt:0
17:19:24 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
17:19:34 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Apple] (20%), Fielding (54%)
17:19:35 <vincent> I also think that site-wide would cover Ad-X
17:20:12 <justin> q?
17:20:20 <vincent> q+
17:20:32 <wseltzer> moneill2: I can't see how if the gateway gets a DNT:0 it doesn't pass it on
17:20:51 <dsinger> s/moneill2/dsinger/
17:20:54 <wseltzer> fielding: that doesn't have to be part of our protocol
17:21:01 <justin> ack npd
17:21:01 <Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to comment on the T response value
17:21:36 <wseltzer> npdoty: even if we delete the T and G paragraph, we might have situations when G doesn't fit
17:21:48 <fielding> I mean, if the site has agreed to additional restrictions, then it should be telling the exchange through the exchange's API (usually the resource URIs)
17:22:21 <wseltzer> ... where you're not going to get more information via TK header
17:23:18 <justin> ack vincent
17:23:21 <npdoty> I think the “N” when all my gateway parties have already agreed is possible, but not a particularly important case
17:23:28 <wseltzer> justin: Looking for something for an exchange to send back when it can't vouch for everything down the line
17:23:34 <fielding> BTW, we are talking about http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#TSV-G
17:24:13 <wseltzer> vincent: perhaps add requirement that gateway should not seek sitewide exception
17:24:37 <wseltzer> ... I meant web-wide exception
17:24:59 <fielding> again, having permission from the user is not a concern of ours.  Think Nielsen.
17:25:11 <npdoty> if it gets a web-wide exception by convincing me that it’s a really trustworthy site, sounds good to me
17:25:54 <npdoty> “we always work with this group of companies, and they make up a really good service”
17:26:03 <justin> q?
17:26:53 <wseltzer> justin: is it appropriate to ask someone working as an exchange to do something quite different
17:27:03 <vincent> ok, sounds good to me then
17:27:29 <wseltzer> justin: Vincent, are you ok removing language around T, giving ability to send N?
17:27:49 <vincent> yes, fine with me
17:27:50 <npdoty> not removing language about T, but removing language about N
17:28:10 <fielding> Well, there is always the ability to not send G.
17:28:21 <wseltzer> s/around T, giving ability to send N/around N, giving ability to send T/
17:28:48 <npdoty> if you’re not tracking, you can send N, as described in the other sections
17:29:00 <fielding> Right, it is really just advice.
17:29:08 <vincent> sharing is tracking
17:29:36 <fielding> It could be a gateway that only exists on one party's site
17:30:03 <wseltzer> dsinger: Need a note that transferring information to another party may be considered tracking?
17:30:52 <wseltzer> justin: I thought it was clear in the definition of tracking, but add a note if you think useful
17:30:52 <justin> q?
17:30:55 <vincent> "When a third party to a given user action receives a DNT:1 signal in a related network interaction that party MUST NOT collect, share, or use tracking data related to that interaction;"
17:31:22 <npdoty> q+
17:31:23 <WileyS> I believe that's a TCS issue, not TPE
17:31:45 <justin> ack npd
17:31:47 <dsinger> to Vincent, that seems pretty clear: a gateway asking another 3rd party to satisfy is necessarily sharing, isn’t it?
17:32:06 <WileyS> Correct - OOBC
17:32:17 <WileyS> OBC/UGE
17:32:26 <justin> q?
17:32:45 <npdoty> I think we don’t have a solution for losing bidders to claim out-of-band consent, as they don’t have the ability to communicate that to the end user
17:32:50 <vincent> dsinger, yes hence the discussion about the service provider status
17:32:59 <justin> q?
17:33:16 <vincent> q+
17:33:21 <justin> ack vincent
17:33:27 <fielding> q+
17:33:45 <wseltzer> vincent: could we see a template of a contract with an ad exchange?
17:33:46 <kulick> How about we re-visit the definition of "tracking" ... ;)
17:33:52 <wseltzer> ... not the confidential details
17:33:52 <WileyS> Another option would be to redefine the term "tracking" :-D  (My x-mas gift to the working group)
17:33:53 <kulick> j/k
17:34:06 <npdoty> is this different from “service provider” definition that we already have settled?
17:34:46 <wseltzer> vincent: TOS of ad exchange, so we could see if they're service providers
17:35:00 <npdoty> relevant section of “service provider” definition from compliance:
17:35:03 <justin> ack fielding
17:35:04 <npdoty> has no independent right to use the data other than in a permanently deidentified form (e.g., for monitoring service integrity, load balancing, capacity planning, or billing);
17:35:34 <wseltzer> fielding: I used "service provider" from discussion; could instead replace with terms applying to gateways
17:35:34 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
17:35:42 <justin> q?
17:35:44 <wseltzer> justin: that sounds useful
17:35:57 <wseltzer> fielding: we do use service provider in another definition, but not so important
17:36:05 <justin> q?
17:36:24 <justin> issue-260?
17:36:24 <trackbot> issue-260 -- method for validating DNT signal from user -- raised
17:36:24 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/260
17:36:33 <wseltzer> justin: sounds like progress, wait for the editors to come back with text
17:36:56 <npdoty> email from fielding http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2014Dec/0020.html
17:37:05 <WileyS> The response doesn't meet industry's needs here and will continue to be the primary reason others will not support this standard voluntarily.
17:37:37 <WileyS> Can we apply a CfO here?
17:37:41 <wseltzer> justin: Shane, do you want us to go through Call for Objections process on this?
17:38:11 <wseltzer> WileyS: I believe we'd already covered this pre LC
17:38:15 <wseltzer> ... it came up again at LC
17:38:27 <npdoty> is there a way that WileyS or others would see a way that would meet those needs?
17:38:43 <wseltzer> ... since it already went through CfO, and chairs determined not to address; we're still getting objections
17:38:50 <wseltzer> ... I don't know if a CfO now will change anything
17:39:00 <wseltzer> ... We were hoping for a technical solution
17:39:08 <wseltzer> ... here, we don't have the multiple options on the table.
17:40:18 <wseltzer> justin: chairs have said that of the options before the group, I agree with Roy's approach
17:40:26 <npdoty> I’m not sure which previous CfO is the relevant one
17:40:28 <dsinger> I think the response is “there is no other way it can be”, alas. There is no answer to “does the user really really really mean it?” (except asking the user again, which is always posisble)
17:41:05 <npdoty> if we don’t have plausible options, then I would agree that the CfO doesn’t really make sense as a process step
17:41:18 <wseltzer> ... if it's an issue blocking CR, say it then
17:41:20 <justin> q?
17:41:27 <wseltzer> ... so I'd suggest we move on, close
17:41:51 <wseltzer> Topic: Compliance issues
17:41:58 <wseltzer> justin: Last issues in TCS, use of tracking
17:42:03 <justin> ack npd
17:42:18 <wseltzer> npdoty: I haven't made changes since last week, but several changes before last week's call
17:42:23 <npdoty> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Editorial_corrections
17:42:42 <fielding> I heard npdoty is keeping a list, like santa
17:42:45 <wseltzer> issue-203?
17:42:45 <trackbot> issue-203 -- Use of "tracking" in third-party compliance -- open
17:42:45 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/203
17:42:59 <wseltzer> npdoty: made some changes last week to address scope
17:43:43 <wseltzer> fielding: still have to review. Likely concerns along the lines of what Vincent quoted
17:43:59 <npdoty> I would welcome any clarifications on that point (data collection that could only happen in one context)
17:44:00 <wseltzer> ... will try to review this week
17:44:12 <npdoty> q+
17:44:25 <wseltzer> justin: I'll send email re orphaned issues
17:44:31 <justin> ack npd
17:45:04 <wseltzer> npdoty: I'd welcome good thorough reviews from folks. I'll try to make my changes before Christmas
17:45:09 <wseltzer> ... and then welcome re-readers
17:45:43 <wseltzer> justin: encourage you all to re-read, report bugs and issues
17:46:15 <justin> q?
17:46:23 <wseltzer> ... we'll send updated timelines
17:46:59 <wseltzer> ... Plan for TCS last call soon; as Nick says, open issues are editorial, not substantive
17:47:26 <npdoty> yeah, I think we’ll be ready for Last Call on Compliance in January
17:47:48 <wseltzer> dsinger: You'll see an email "this is the LC candidate"?
17:48:00 <npdoty> sounds right to me, dsinger
17:48:06 <wseltzer> justin: we can CR TPE before TCS to LC
17:48:09 <npdoty> (I agree that TPE can go to CR before)
17:48:38 <wseltzer> npdoty: they don't have to go to CR at the same time
17:48:56 <wseltzer> justin: we need to resolve the gateway issue; editorial changes to TPE
17:49:00 <justin> q?
17:49:06 <wseltzer> ... think both can move forward in January
17:49:17 <wseltzer> ... when editors think docs are ready
17:49:27 <justin> q?
17:49:50 <justin> q?
17:50:16 <Zakim> -WileyS
17:50:17 <Zakim> -kulick
17:50:17 <Zakim> -Chris_Pedigo
17:50:19 <Zakim> -Carl_Cargill
17:50:19 <Zakim> -justin
17:50:20 <Zakim> -[FTC]
17:50:21 <Zakim> -npdoty
17:50:23 <Zakim> -[Apple]
17:50:25 <wseltzer> [adjourned]
17:50:29 <npdoty> thanks wseltzer for scribing
17:50:30 <Zakim> -Wendy
17:50:32 <Zakim> -vincent
17:50:33 <npdoty> happy holidays to all
17:50:34 <Zakim> -moneill2
17:50:37 <npdoty> trackbot, end meeting
17:50:37 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:50:37 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been npdoty, Chris_Pedigo, Wendy, moneill2, dsinger, [FTC], Fielding, justin, WileyS, vincent, Carl_Cargill, kulick
17:50:45 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:50:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/17-dnt-minutes.html trackbot
17:50:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:50:46 <RRSAgent> I see no action items