17:13:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
17:13:29 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/30-dnt-irc
17:13:34 <wseltzer> schunter: two main items, Frank wanted to update us on the progress plans
17:13:38 <CRAIG> CRAIG has joined #dnt
17:13:56 <wseltzer> present+ wseltzer, mikeoneill, schunter, wileys, npdoty
17:14:00 <wseltzer> zakim, who is here?
17:14:01 <Zakim> Present: wseltzer, mikeoneill, schunter, wileys, npdoty
17:14:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see CRAIG, RRSAgent, Zakim, fwagner_, vincent3, dsinger, fwagner, npdoty, wileys, schunter, mikeoneill, walter, mkwst, adrianba, hadleybeeman, wseltzer, trackbot
17:14:07 <wseltzer> present+ dsinger
17:14:30 <npdoty> schunter: charter is now available for voting, so if you want to support this group, contact your AC rep to vote
17:14:38 <npdoty> wseltzer: each member has one vote, exercised through their AC rep
17:14:49 <npdoty> ... if you want to continue, please ask your AC rep to vote there
17:15:06 <npdoty> ... note from the chairs to the AC with the message discussed on the list
17:15:12 <npdoty> ... thanks dsinger
17:15:41 <wileys> Anyone can send an email to the email list but ACs may not be reading those
17:16:00 <fwagner> fwagner has left #dnt
17:17:39 <npdoty> Topic: update from Frank
17:17:42 <wseltzer> present+ frank
17:18:24 <npdoty> can someone who can hear take notes?
17:18:50 <wseltzer> frank: Conversation with Marit Hansen, Schleswig-Holstein
17:18:59 <wseltzer> ... they will support a test
17:19:11 <wseltzer> ... meeting with Mike O'Neill last week
17:19:19 <wseltzer> q+
17:19:33 <wseltzer> ... during December, we will write a short proposal about the evaluation
17:19:54 <wseltzer> ... share with Nielsen, Reuters, to ask how they could support the evaluation process
17:20:19 <wseltzer> ... Also, I have been invited to speak to the European Academy of Free Information and Privacy in Berlin
17:20:24 <wseltzer> ... founded by Berlin DPA
17:21:30 <npdoty> present+ fielding
17:21:37 <wseltzer> present+ Roy
17:22:08 <wseltzer> s/test/evaluation/
17:22:33 <wseltzer> ... Marit is aware our interest in using DNT to create opt-in mechanism for GDPR
17:22:56 <wseltzer> ... she/her staff will support our efforts to build evaluation
17:23:07 <wseltzer> ... good to have involvement from a DPA who's technical
17:23:57 <wseltzer> ... good to see how an opt-in enforced by GDPR could work in real-life
17:25:04 <wseltzer> ... European Academy, people highly interested to realize that DNT is not a blocking mechanism but one that can handle user consent
17:25:15 <wseltzer> ... countered the perception that DNT is dead
17:25:30 <wseltzer> ... showed option to use DNT to get consent from customers
17:25:42 <wseltzer> Vincent: I second that
17:26:28 <wseltzer> schunter: So our plan woudl be that labs and Mike work on a prototype, evaluate with Marit for compliance mechanism
17:26:40 <wseltzer> frank: I don't expect DPA "endorsement" of a solution
17:26:52 <wseltzer> ... but that mechanism is sufficient to comply with GDPR requirements
17:26:52 <npdoty> what kind of party is this an evaluation for? like a publisher showing that they have consent from their users? or a third-party embedded item?
17:27:02 <wseltzer> schunter: and we might get feedback that more is needed
17:27:05 <wseltzer> ... what's the timeframe?
17:27:14 <wseltzer> frank: it would be good to finish by summer
17:28:05 <wileys> Would likely be more accessible for a Publisher to setup their own OOB opt-in control versus supporting DNT as they’d have more control and wouldn’t be giving away messaging and controls to a web browser.
17:28:08 <wseltzer> ... we also need to work on UI
17:28:22 <wseltzer> ... some remarks to help the user understand, make sure it's a real consent
17:28:49 <wseltzer> mikeoneill: most of the UI will ultimately go on the website
17:28:57 <wileys> So while I see EU regulators stating DNT is “an option for opt-in consent” the likely outcome is that publishers will build their own experience so they can own messaging and controls from that point forward.
17:29:05 <ChrisPedigoDCN> ChrisPedigoDCN has joined #dnt
17:29:22 <wseltzer> schunter: sounds like good progress, we'll look forward to updates
17:30:22 <wseltzer> frank: Nielsen and Thomson Reuters mentioned in Lisbon interst in pursuing evaluation
17:30:33 <npdoty> yeah, I'd like to read more about the details of the potential evaluation -- is this for publishers or third-parties? are they using DNT headers and browser controls, or storing consent with cookies?
17:30:35 <wseltzer> Vincent: feedback from Peter Schaar was also useful
17:30:52 <wseltzer> ... sharing info on DNT
17:31:03 <wseltzer> schunter: Call 2 weeks ago didn't happen
17:31:15 <wseltzer> ... or happened without chair
17:31:21 <wseltzer> ... [or minutes]
17:31:34 <wseltzer> wileys: peter walked us through EFF's position and thinking
17:31:44 <wseltzer> ... fielding questions from WG on particular elements
17:32:04 <wseltzer> mikeoneill: I talked with Alan Toner after meeting in Berlin, supporting TPE work
17:32:16 <wseltzer> ... let's get away from 2 DNTs, collaborate
17:32:22 <npdoty> +1 on getting away from idea of multiple DNT's
17:32:34 <wseltzer> schunter: what was the opinion on the call?
17:32:43 <wseltzer> wileys: Peter saw value, wanted to spend more time looking at it
17:33:07 <wseltzer> ... he could see value in single tech standard, allowing for differentiation on policy side
17:33:28 <wseltzer> schunter: I'd like to get someone from EFF back into the call regularly
17:34:04 <wseltzer> ... work through issues on TPE
17:34:21 <wseltzer> ... I think it's good to get more implementations
17:34:29 <wseltzer> npdoty: we opened some issues on EFF's implementation
17:34:33 <wseltzer> ... to note the gaps
17:34:40 <wseltzer> ... did that capture everything?
17:35:30 <wseltzer> mikeoneill: consent isn't emphasized in theirs
17:36:10 <wseltzer> npdoty: issues captured in EFF's repo
17:36:30 <wseltzer> Topic: Issues
17:36:44 <wseltzer> schunter: Issue 5
17:36:49 <schunter> https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues
17:37:21 <npdoty> https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues/5
17:37:28 <npdoty>  Delivering Tk response via meta tag, and extending it to contain a reference to the TSR #5
17:37:38 <ChrisPedigoDCN> ChrisPedigoDCN has joined #dnt
17:37:57 <wseltzer> mikeoneill: basic problem: it's hard for sites to have control over response headers and access to .well-known location
17:38:56 <npdoty> do we need to define http-equiv meta tags? or is it already understood that browsers will interpret http-equiv as the corresponding response headers?
17:39:10 <wseltzer> mikeoneill: so I suggested using META element
17:39:29 <wseltzer> ... similar to CSP
17:40:19 <wseltzer> ... Second, site with thousands of websites
17:40:26 <wseltzer> ... how do they communicate control
17:40:56 <wseltzer> schunter: start with first one, meta element
17:42:10 <wseltzer> dsinger: 2 issues
17:42:19 <wseltzer> ... should we put URL in TK header
17:42:29 <wseltzer> ... should we allow http-equiv
17:42:41 <wseltzer> s/allow/document/
17:42:49 <wseltzer> s/URL/TSR URL/
17:42:53 <dsinger> I’d like to see this split into (at least) two issues:  (a) mention the use of http-equiv as permitted; (b) allow the TSR URL to be in the response header
17:43:04 <wseltzer> mikeoneill: origin policy manifest
17:43:36 <wseltzer> ... you don't want to deliver on every webpage
17:44:05 <wseltzer> ... why do they also need a TSR
17:45:10 <npdoty> can we postpone the possible later combination with other origin policy or other manifests?
17:45:26 <wseltzer> schunter: I don't see a downside to saying we can also deliver http-equiv
17:45:43 <wseltzer> ... unless someone here objects, propose a resolution and send to the list
17:45:55 <dsinger> I don’t see a problem with a “Note: the Tk header can also delivered using http-equiv (and give a reference)”
17:46:10 <dsinger> (presuming it’s true. Roy knows better than me)
17:46:46 <wseltzer> schunter: Issue 6, JS API, homework to split into multiple issues
17:47:02 <wseltzer> ... 7
17:47:27 <wseltzer> mikeoneill: talking to Medium, issue came up how do you know whether browser supports DNT API
17:47:54 <wseltzer> ... you used to be able to @@
17:48:01 <wseltzer> ... but Edge changed the function
17:48:12 <npdoty> q+
17:48:17 <wseltzer> q-
17:48:30 <wseltzer> ... I sent a bug report to Edge
17:48:37 <wseltzer> ... they responded, saying implementing API
17:48:44 <wseltzer> ... it would be good to get feedback
17:49:17 <wseltzer> schunter: since Edge implemnets API incorrectly, they always report false
17:49:27 <wseltzer> npdoty: sounds like an implementation bug
17:49:39 <wseltzer> ... impls need to make sure fn exists if implmented
17:49:46 <wseltzer> ... I'd oppose adding to UA string
17:49:52 <wseltzer> mikeoneill: timing problem
17:50:42 <npdoty> so can we open a bug on Edge and close this spec issue?
17:50:48 <wseltzer> schunter: don't include functions in standard to work around buggy implementation
17:51:00 <wseltzer> ... not an issue we should address in standard
17:52:27 <wseltzer> mikeoneill: I'll close the issue
17:53:40 <wseltzer> mikeoneill: @@ revoke consent
17:54:28 <wseltzer> 8?
17:55:06 <npdoty> https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues/8
17:55:08 <wseltzer> mikeoneill: you'd like to be able to say you've made a decision, revoked consent
17:55:15 <wseltzer> ... so you don't get asked again
17:55:33 <npdoty> q+ sites can remember previous requests using cookies if they like
17:56:05 <wseltzer> dsinger: this is off in the weeds
17:56:10 <npdoty> +1 to dsinger, don't need to add more to DNT: 1 here
17:56:18 <wseltzer> ... don't think it helps, e.g. how far back do you remember
17:56:21 <npdoty> sites can remember whether they previously asked users things using cookies, if they like
17:57:24 <wseltzer> npdoty: you can use a cookie. DNT-cookieflow=1
17:57:36 <wseltzer> mikeoneill: you could have a low entropy cookie, consent-revoked
17:58:02 <wseltzer> mikeoneill: I'll think about that and get back to the list
17:58:13 <wseltzer> q+
17:58:15 <npdoty> q-
17:58:21 <fwagner_> sorry, I have to drop off now.
17:58:29 <fwagner_> fwagner_ has left #dnt
17:58:31 <wseltzer> q-
17:58:49 <wseltzer> [discussion of charter status: we're currently in a short-term extension]
17:59:08 <wileys> When is our next meeting?
17:59:36 <wileys> 12/14 is the  next call?
17:59:51 <npdoty> I may need to join late for December 14th call
17:59:55 <dsinger> regrets for the 14th Dec, sorry (AB meeting)
18:00:02 <wseltzer> schunter: next call Dec 14, technical issues
18:00:02 <wileys> This will likely be the last one for this year due to holidays - agreed?
18:00:17 <wileys> LOL
18:01:26 <wseltzer> https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues
18:02:07 <wseltzer> [adjourned]
18:02:08 <wileys> wileys has left #dnt
18:02:10 <wseltzer> rrsagent, make minutes
18:02:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/30-dnt-minutes.html wseltzer
18:02:25 <wseltzer> rrsagent, make logs public
18:02:26 <wseltzer> rrsagent, make minutes
18:02:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/30-dnt-minutes.html wseltzer
19:03:23 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #dnt
19:30:05 <WalterTamboer> WalterTamboer has joined #dnt
20:21:52 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dnt