15:57:28 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:57:28 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/04/04-dnt-irc
15:57:38 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dnt
15:57:41 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #dnt
15:57:47 <efelten> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:57:47 <Zakim> sorry, efelten, I don't know what conference this is
15:57:48 <Zakim> On IRC I see dsinger, Zakim, RRSAgent, aleecia, eberkower, ifette, johnsimpson, efelten, alex, tl, mischat, schunter, hober, trackbot, wseltzer, pde
15:57:52 <aleecia> Zakim, this is dnt
15:57:52 <Zakim> ok, aleecia; that matches T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
15:57:53 <jmayer> jmayer has joined #dnt
15:57:54 <ifette> Man, hotels were already expensive :(
15:58:02 <aleecia> chair: aleecia
15:58:02 <tl> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:58:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Mozilla], ??P5, +1.813.366.aaaa, +1.408.674.aabb, +1.202.326.aacc, +1.650.253.aadd, +1.202.684.aaee
15:58:03 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
15:58:11 <efelten> Zakim, aacc is me
15:58:11 <Zakim> +efelten; got it
15:58:14 <aleecia> rrsagent, make logs public
15:58:17 <tl> Zakim, Mozilla has TL.
15:58:18 <Zakim> +TL; got it
15:58:24 <efelten> Zakim, efelten has cOlsen
15:58:24 <Zakim> +cOlsen; got it
15:58:33 <Zakim> + +1.415.734.aaff
15:58:34 <Zakim> + +1.202.587.aagg
15:58:50 <Zakim> +[Apple]
15:58:51 <aleecia> scribe is ifette
15:58:56 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
15:58:56 <dsinger> zakim, [apple] has dsinger
15:58:56 <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
15:59:04 <Zakim> +??P33
15:59:10 <ifette> ScribeNick: ifette
15:59:14 <Zakim> + +1.310.392.aahh
15:59:15 <Zakim> + +1.510.859.aaii
15:59:19 <Zakim> + +1.646.654.aajj
15:59:29 <Lia> Lia has joined #dnt
15:59:33 <ifette> Zakim, agenda?
15:59:33 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
15:59:36 <npdoty> Zakim, aaii is npdoty
15:59:36 <Zakim> +npdoty; got it
15:59:37 <eberkower> 646 is eberkower
15:59:43 <jchester2> jchester2 has joined #dnt
15:59:43 <npdoty> Zakim, aajj is eberkower
15:59:44 <johnsimpson> zakim, aahh is me
15:59:46 <Zakim> +eberkower; got it
15:59:49 <Zakim> +johnsimpson; got it
15:59:56 <dsinger> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:59:56 <aleecia> agenda+ Chris Olsen, summarizing relevant parts of the recently released FTC report [ first 30 minutes of the call ]
15:59:59 <Zakim> + +1.202.344.aakk
16:00:05 <ifette> BTW is anyone else staying up near embassy row next week?
16:00:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Mozilla], ??P5, +1.813.366.aaaa, +1.408.674.aabb, efelten, +1.650.253.aadd, +1.202.684.aaee, +1.415.734.aaff, +1.202.587.aagg, [Apple], ??P33, johnsimpson,
16:00:08 <mike> mike has joined #dnt
16:00:10 <Zakim> ... npdoty, eberkower, +1.202.344.aakk
16:00:12 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has TL
16:00:13 <aleecia> agenda+ Stu Ingis, summarizing the DAA's principles [ second 30 minutes of the call ]
16:00:15 <Zakim> efelten has cOlsen
16:00:16 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:00:19 <bilcorry> bilcorry has joined #dnt
16:00:24 <aleecia> agenda+ Status check on five major bits of text we are expecting no later than Friday to allow time for review:
16:00:26 <sidstamm> sidstamm has joined #dnt
16:00:30 <Zakim> + +1.408.223.aall
16:00:33 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
16:00:34 <Zakim> + +1.602.400.aamm
16:00:35 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:00:36 <ifette> Zakim, who's making noise?
16:00:38 <Zakim> + +1.202.496.aann
16:00:44 <aleecia> agenda+ Discussion of agenda for f2f meeting
16:00:48 <sidstamm> aleecia: same deal this week… I'm double booked but will somewhat watch IRC
16:00:48 <aleecia> agenda+ Announce next meeting & adjourn
16:00:51 <ifette> Zakim, aadd is ifette
16:00:58 <Zakim> +Bryan_Sullivan
16:01:06 <dsriedel> dsriedel has joined #dnt
16:01:06 <susanisrael> susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:01:06 <Zakim> + +1.301.270.aaoo
16:01:08 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:01:10 <jlenhart> jlenhart has joined #dnt
16:01:10 <Zakim> + +1.215.286.aapp
16:01:18 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P56 (19%)
16:01:19 <ifette> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:24 <Zakim> + +1.917.934.aaqq
16:01:24 <schunter> Zakim, ?P5 is schunter
16:01:27 <Zakim> +ifette; got it
16:01:29 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
16:01:30 <Zakim> ifette, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 22 (21%), +1.408.674.aabb (17%), +1.301.270.aaoo (19%)
16:01:31 <jlenhart> + 215.286.4518
16:01:35 <ifette> Aleecia: Fortunate to have people joining us who will give us summaries of things relevant to our work
16:01:37 <jchester2> jchester2+301.270.3938
16:01:41 <ifette> ... starting off, Chris Olsen from FTC
16:01:52 <ifette> ... you may know him from work on recent privacy report
16:01:56 <dsinger> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Mozilla], ??P5, +1.813.366.aaaa, +1.408.674.aabb, efelten, ifette, +1.202.684.aaee, +1.415.734.aaff, +1.202.587.aagg, [Apple], ??P33, johnsimpson, npdoty,
16:01:59 <hefferjr> hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:01:59 <npdoty> Zakim, aaoo is jchester2
16:02:00 <Zakim> ... eberkower, +1.202.344.aakk, +1.602.400.aamm, +1.408.223.aall, +1.202.496.aann, Bryan_Sullivan, +1.301.270.aaoo, [Microsoft], +1.215.286.aapp, +1.917.934.aaqq
16:02:01 <ifette> ... will focus on substance and areas relevant to our DNT work
16:02:05 <ifette> ... will give about a 20m summary
16:02:07 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has TL
16:02:10 <Zakim> efelten has cOlsen
16:02:10 <ifette> ... with questions at end, from IRC
16:02:13 <mike> 202.344.aazz
16:02:14 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:02:15 <ifette> Zakim, next agendum
16:02:19 <JC> JC has joined #DNT
16:02:20 <Zakim> + +49.721.913.74.aarr
16:02:20 <ifette> Chris: Thanks Aleecia
16:02:22 <Zakim> sorry, schunter, I do not recognize a party named '?P5'
16:02:30 <Zakim> +Cyril_Concolato
16:02:31 <dsriedel> zakim, aarr is dsriedel
16:02:32 <Zakim> + +1.813.366.aass
16:02:32 <JC> JC 425.705.3326
16:02:33 <ac> ac has joined #dnt
16:02:33 <npdoty> Zakim, aazz is mike
16:02:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Mozilla], ??P5, +1.813.366.aaaa, +1.408.674.aabb, efelten, ifette, +1.202.684.aaee, +1.415.734.aaff, +1.202.587.aagg, [Apple], ??P33, johnsimpson, npdoty,
16:02:39 <ifette> ... appreciate opportunity to talk about privacy report, will focus on issues most peritnent to DNT but happy to answer other questions
16:02:41 <Zakim> ... eberkower, +1.202.344.aakk, +1.602.400.aamm, +1.408.223.aall, +1.202.496.aann, Bryan_Sullivan, +1.301.270.aaoo, [Microsoft], +1.215.286.aapp, +1.917.934.aaqq,
16:02:47 <Zakim> ... +49.721.913.74.aarr, Cyril_Concolato, +1.813.366.aass
16:02:47 <ifette> ... report differs from prelim staff report in terms of level of issuance
16:02:49 <Zakim> efelten has cOlsen
16:02:51 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:02:51 <ifette> ... this is a commission report
16:02:52 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has TL
16:02:54 <Zakim> +jchester2; got it
16:02:55 <ifette> ... first was a staff report
16:02:58 <Zakim> + +1.914.374.aatt
16:03:00 <Zakim> + +1.617.733.aauu
16:03:04 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Chris Olsen, summarizing relevant parts of the recently released FTC report" taken up [from  first 30 minutes of the call ]
16:03:05 <bryan> bryan has joined #dnt
16:03:07 <Zakim> + +1.714.852.aavv
16:03:08 <ifette> ... this has some significance, even though the commission reported on the staff report in 2010, it was not a commission report
16:03:10 <aleecia> zakim, aabb is me
16:03:15 <npdoty> Zakim, [Microsoft] has JC
16:03:15 <Zakim> +dsriedel; got it
16:03:16 <fielding> Zakim, aavv is fielding
16:03:20 <Zakim> sorry, npdoty, I do not recognize a party named 'aazz'
16:03:23 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
16:03:23 <dsriedel> zakim, mute me
16:03:23 <ifette> ... difference is that at this point, people can't point to the report and say "well, it's just a staff report w/o commission backing"
16:03:27 <Zakim> + +1.347.599.aaww
16:03:28 <adrianba> zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
16:03:31 <Zakim> +aleecia; got it
16:03:33 <Zakim> +JC; got it
16:03:35 <Zakim> +fielding; got it
16:03:37 <Zakim> dsriedel should now be muted
16:03:41 <ifette> ... want to talk about DNT, a few different sections. DNT in report appears around pp52-55
16:03:42 <Vinay> Vinay has joined #dnt
16:03:43 <Zakim> +adrianba; got it
16:03:46 <Zakim> + +1.202.346.aaxx
16:03:50 <ifette> ... as well as first party issues being bandied about in WG
16:03:51 <Joanne> Joanne has joined #DNT
16:03:52 <ifette> ... as for DNT
16:03:52 <bilcorry> Zakim, aall is bilcorry
16:03:57 <alex> zakim, mute me
16:03:59 <Zakim> +bilcorry; got it
16:03:59 <ifette> ... commission affirmed approach in preliminary staff report
16:04:07 <Zakim> sorry, alex, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:04:09 <Zakim> + +1.202.835.aayy
16:04:09 <Marc> Marc has joined #DNT
16:04:11 <aleecia> Hi, Bil!
16:04:11 <ifette> ... commission wanted to see a DNT system that met five different criteria / key principles
16:04:21 <ifette> ... first, should be implemented universally to cover all parties that track consumers
16:04:22 <Zakim> - +1.202.587.aagg
16:04:27 <ifette> ... choice mechanism easy to find/understand/use
16:04:31 <ifette> ... choices should be persistent
16:04:31 <adrianba> zakim, mute me
16:04:32 <Zakim> + +1.415.520.aazz
16:04:37 <Zakim> adrianba should now be muted
16:04:44 <ifette> ... should be comprehensive, effective and enforcable
16:04:58 <npdoty> the FTC Final Privacy Report is here: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/03/privacyframework.shtm
16:05:03 <ifette> ... and should go beyond simply opting consumers out of ads, should address collection of data for purposes other than those consistent with the context of the intertaction
16:05:04 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:05:12 <ifette> ... have identified exceptions re click fraud, analytics
16:05:15 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
16:05:17 <Joanne> +1.415.520 is Joanne
16:05:22 <hwest_> hwest_ has joined #dnt
16:05:27 <ifette> ... remarked on the efforts individual browser vendors made in response to call for DNT
16:05:33 <ifette> ... talked about what MSFT, MOZ, AAPL have done
16:05:37 <Zakim> +??P14
16:05:39 <ifette> ... as well as what DAA has done with icon based approach
16:05:42 <npdoty> Zakim, aazz is Joanne
16:05:42 <Zakim> +Joanne; got it
16:05:58 <ifette> ... noted that DAA has pulled togehter a number of different member companies to participate in an improved transparency effort and improved opt-out mechanism
16:06:11 <ifette> ... and have achieved impressive coverage in terms of delivery of behavioural advertising
16:06:17 <Zakim> +Rigo
16:06:22 <ifette> ... noted more important steps made recently by DAA regarding some concerns flagged by FTC
16:06:35 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:06:35 <ifette> ... including the fact that DAA system hisotrically focused on giving consumers control over receipt of targeted ads
16:06:37 <Zakim> + +1.202.344.bbaa
16:06:44 <ifette> ... more recently, have announced multi-site collection principles
16:06:46 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: efelten (85%)
16:06:51 <Zakim> + +1.202.587.bbbb
16:06:51 <ifette> ... implementing later this year, scheduled to conclude this year
16:06:55 <ifette> ... Stu will tlak about that
16:07:00 <ifette> ... thought that was important step forward
16:07:09 <WileyS> WileyS has joined #DNT
16:07:10 <ifette> ... to address concerns we had, that DNT needs to focus on collection as well as recept of ads
16:07:28 <ifette> ... multi-site collection principles talk about prohibition of collection if collection is for e.g. employment, insurance, healthcare elligibility
16:07:28 <Zakim> + +1.408.349.bbcc
16:07:44 <Zakim> + +1.202.637.bbdd
16:07:45 <WileyS> Zakim, bbcc is WileyS
16:07:46 <Zakim> +WileyS; got it
16:07:48 <ifette> ... noted another recent DAA development which was discussed at White House event which was its agreement to abide by a DNT header
16:07:55 <ifette> ... targeted for implementation later this year
16:08:18 <ifette> ... implementation of a DNT header is something FTC needs to pay attention to, how will it happen, what does implementation mean, are there isuses still to be resolved around multi-site collection
16:08:22 <ifette> ... really glad Stu is available to talk
16:08:32 <ifette> ... spent time talking about W3C and its WG
16:08:44 <ifette> ... to pull together diverse group of stakeholders to work on a standard for what DNT means, how one would comply
16:09:04 <ifette> ... noted W3C has made progress in short time it's been up and running (the WG), and that FTC looks forward to W3C making further progress
16:09:12 <ifette> ... as it moves to a DNT standard that hopefully has broad consensus
16:09:17 <ifette> ... to all key stakeholder groups
16:09:25 <ifette> ... that's the crux of the FTC DNT discussion
16:09:28 <ifette> ... can answer questions later
16:09:36 <ifette> ... also wanted to flag first party marketing issues the report addressed
16:09:41 <ifette> ... regarding status of affiliates
16:09:46 <ifette> ... appears in pp47-48 of the final report
16:10:02 <ifette> ... noted various commenters raising questions about whether affiliates considered first parties for marketing purposes
16:10:09 <ifette> ... to put in context, appears in the "choice" section of the report
16:10:17 <ifette> ... report has 3 fundamental principles/ best practices to consider
16:10:25 <ifette> ... 1, simplified or improved choice
16:10:33 <ifette> ... other 2, privacy by design and increased transparency
16:10:37 <ifette> ... this appears in the choice section
16:10:55 <ifette> ... set up by saying certain things are so accepted by the nature of consumer interactions iwht businesses that giving them a choice was not necessary
16:10:59 <ifette> ... talked about first party marketing
16:11:17 <ifette> ... what we had in mind was if you go to a retailer, you have a basic understanding that the retailer will use your info to market additional products back to you
16:11:27 <ifette> ... noted certain exceptions to blanket rule
16:11:39 <jlenhart_> jlenhart_ has joined #dnt
16:11:39 <ifette> ... dealing with how you define a first party
16:11:44 <rigo> rigo has joined #Dnt
16:11:52 <ifette> ... affiliates and third party relationships
16:11:57 <ifette> ... actually, its pp41-44
16:12:00 <ifette> ... of the report
16:12:21 <ifette> ... noted dispute in comments about whether data sharing among affiliate organizations should be considered all within the first party relationship with the consumer
16:12:36 <ifette> ... we noted different arguments re corporate ownership, obvious relationship to consumers
16:13:12 <ifette> ... took the position, which was not intended to reflect a change from 2009 staff report, but noted that in commission's view, affiliates are third parties and a consumer choice mechanism is necessary to share info across affiliates unless the relationship is clear to consumers
16:13:23 <ifette> ... common branding is one way to make the relationship clear to consumer
16:13:28 <ifette> ... if relationship not clear, choice has to be offered
16:13:34 <ifette> ... similar to what was said in 2009 OBA report
16:13:47 <ifette> ... two things I wanted to highlight, happy to discuss other aspects of reports if there are questions
16:13:49 <enewland> enewland has joined #dnt
16:13:50 <schunter> Zakim, ??P5 is schunter
16:13:50 <Zakim> +schunter; got it
16:13:54 <ifette> ... but those were the main things to hit
16:13:58 <bryan> q+ to ask what is "clear" to users
16:14:05 <ifette> ... perhaps its better to leave more time for questions
16:14:16 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:14:17 <npdoty> q?
16:14:17 <dsinger> q?
16:14:17 <ifette> Aleecia: Have not seen questions yet on IRC, please type questions in IRC
16:14:24 <ifette> ... will kick things off that way
16:14:27 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: aleecia (92%), efelten (4%)
16:14:37 <ifette> I would ntoe you can use "q+ to BLAH"
16:14:39 <ifette> where BLAH is your question
16:14:42 <npdoty> ack bryan 
16:14:42 <Zakim> bryan, you wanted to ask what is "clear" to users
16:14:43 <aleecia> ack bryan
16:14:46 <ifette> e.g. q+ to ask what's clear to users
16:15:02 <ifette> Brian: What's clear to users? If it's clear perhaps don't need mechanism, but would be nice for guidance on what's "clear"
16:15:05 <laurengelman> laurengelman has joined #dnt
16:15:09 <npdoty> s/Brian/Bryan/
16:15:12 <ifette> ... affiliate relationship
16:15:16 <aleecia> any other questions for Chris?
16:15:23 <ifette> Chris: Will depend. We identified branding as a way to make that relationship clear
16:15:25 <jmayer> Q: What does "collection" mean?  Is it receiving information?  Retaining information?  Does the meaning differ for actively collected data (e.g. cookies) and passively collected data (e.g. IP address)?
16:15:30 <ifette> ... may be other ways to make relationship clear to users
16:15:36 <jchester2> +q
16:15:41 <aleecia> noted Jonathan
16:15:50 <Lia> +q
16:15:54 <aleecia> Jeff, please type in your question; Lia too
16:16:11 <ifette> ... If you're being asked to log in to webistes with a common ID that makes it clear that when you're logging in to a particular site, it's affiliated with the company whose login credentials you are using
16:16:16 <aleecia> I'll summarize and I believe Chris has IRC available too
16:16:18 <ifette> ... you can argue the affiliate relationship is clear
16:16:40 <ifette> ... wanted to get away from notion that you could explain the relationship but not in a way that was clear or obvious to consumers, e.g. buried in depths of a privacy policy
16:16:42 <jchester2> sorry.  I forgot.  Chris:  How would the FTC respond when there are different data collection practices conducted by affiliates?
16:16:47 <ifette> ... would not be clear under the language of this report
16:16:58 <ifette> Again, can I suggest using "q+ to ask whether XYZ"
16:17:26 <ifette> Jonthan: What does "collection" mean?  Is it receiving information?  Retaining information?  Does the meaning differ for actively collected data (e.g. cookies) and passively collected data (e.g. IP address)?
16:17:32 <ifette> Chris: Text of the report did not define collection
16:17:40 <npdoty> s/Jonthan/Jonathan/
16:17:44 <ifette> ... may be different things on the continuum that present different levels of concern
16:17:58 <ifette> ... if data retained by a company for some period of time, not many arguments that doesn't represent collection
16:18:12 <ifette> ... if data hits a server and is immediately stripped / disposed of, could hear arguments that data does not constitute collection
16:18:24 <aleecia> Jeff, your question is next; Lia please type yours in (the q+ suggestion is great)
16:18:31 <ifette> ... where the commission comes down on that spectrum has not been decided w.r.t. this report
16:18:41 <johnsimpson> Question: Would it be possible for two sites owned by the same company, but requiring different logins, to be considered affiliates?
16:19:00 <ifette> ... report addresses ways to take certain data and ship it outside the scope of the framework
16:19:01 <npdoty> q+ johnsimpson to Would it be possible for two sites owned by the same company, but requiring different logins, to be considered affiliates?
16:19:03 <ifette> ... pp18-22
16:19:07 <ifette> ... reasonably linkable standard
16:19:21 <ifette> ... discusses steps company can take to make sure the data they collect is not reasonably linkable to a consumer computer or device
16:19:27 <Lia> Nevermind Chris is answering my question now 
16:19:33 <aleecia> noted, thanks
16:19:35 <npdoty> q- lia
16:19:35 <aleecia> ack Lia
16:19:41 <ifette> ... if certain data hits a server, and certain steps the company takes w.r.t. that data to take it outside the scope of the framework
16:19:42 <ifette> ... commission may view that data differently
16:19:57 <ifette> ... than just receiving that data on the servers and keeping it without taking any action to de-link / de-identify the data
16:20:16 <ifette> Jeff: How would the FTC respond if there are different data collection practices conducted by different affiliates?
16:20:24 <ifette> Chris: Not entirely sure i undertand the question
16:20:30 <jchester2> in terms of user expctations, across affiliates
16:20:30 <npdoty> q- jchester
16:20:32 <ifette> ... start from the premise a company, presumably a first party
16:20:37 <ifette> ... and if talking about commonly branded affiliates
16:20:48 <ifette> ... if you engage in a variety of different practices with consumer / collected data
16:20:48 <mike> Q:  What is the FTC's definition of a "Data Broker"?
16:20:56 <aleecia> John Simpson next, then Mike's Q
16:21:02 <ifette> ... under our framework, company obligated to provide clear disclosure to consumers about what the collection practices are
16:21:08 <ifette> ... choice discussion doesn't really afect that analysis
16:21:11 <npdoty> q+ mike to What is the FTC's definition of a "Data Broker"?
16:21:18 <ifette> ... companies required, if they have 3 diff practices, need to explain those to consumers
16:21:27 <npdoty> ack johnsimpson 
16:21:27 <Zakim> johnsimpson, you wanted to Would it be possible for two sites owned by the same company, but requiring different logins, to be considered affiliates?
16:21:49 <ifette> John Simpson: Would it be possible for two sites owned by same company but diff logins to be considered same company
16:21:52 <aleecia> q?
16:21:59 <ifette> Chris: Depends on UI and what the login prompt / box looks like
16:22:09 <ifette> ... if its clear through the login process the two are commonly owned and essentially the same party
16:22:15 <ifette> ... then strong argument that they are first party
16:22:19 <ifette> ... but hard to answer in isolation
16:22:25 <ifette> ... offered up the common login
16:22:40 <rigo>  I wonder about the relation of affiliates to the concept of data processors 
16:22:42 <ifette> ... but important to note that it depends on what the UI looks like re; whether that relationship is apparent to consumers
16:22:55 <ifette> Aleecia: How would the FTC decide what is/ is not apparent to consumers? is there a process?
16:23:14 <ifette> Chris: Hard to answer. Process in law enforcement context, but i dont think that's what you're asking
16:23:24 <ifette> ... think the process would be, we see this a number of times
16:23:32 <ifette> ... companies come to us and say this is how we want to proceed
16:23:37 <ifette> ... they do that so they can get our reaction
16:23:38 <ifette> ... and feedback
16:23:50 <ifette> ... have done that with a number of companies in the past, expect we'll do that going forward
16:23:57 <ifette> ... that feedback or guidacne can't be binding
16:24:03 <ifette> ... but companies find it useful to get that reaction
16:24:23 <ifette> ... if they come up with a UI and say this is how we would like to tell consumers we are apparently / obviously affiliated, we could at least provide informal feedback
16:24:24 <npdoty> ack mike 
16:24:24 <Zakim> mike, you wanted to What is the FTC's definition of a "Data Broker"?
16:24:31 <ifette> Mike: What is FTC's definition of a data broker
16:24:39 <ifette> Chris: report doesn't concretely define data / information broker
16:24:53 <aleecia> Rigo: is that something you'd like me to ask about?
16:24:54 <ifette> ... contemplating companies that do not typically interface with consumers
16:25:04 <ifette> ... they engage generally in b2b transactions, providing marketing data to other companies
16:25:19 <aleecia> Any other questions?
16:25:21 <ifette> ... not the companies who have consumer facing products generally, but rather those who don't
16:25:22 <rigo> please, I'm on mobile
16:25:33 <johnsimpson> Question: How would the FTC define consent?
16:25:38 <ifette> ... similar definition that reflects similar contexts in legislation that passed the House a few years ago referenced in privacy report
16:25:55 <ifette> Rigo: Relationship between affiliates and data processors? EU vs US definitions
16:26:04 <ifette> Chris: More specificity?
16:26:16 <ifette> ... do you mean are affiliates considered DPs?
16:26:33 <ifette> Aleecia: will come back
16:26:40 <ifette> John Simpson: How would the FTC define consent?
16:26:48 <ifette> Chris: Question not specifically spelled out in the report
16:26:59 <ifette> ... will depend on particular UI
16:27:06 <ifette> ... (whether consent has been obtained)
16:27:06 <aleecia> Rigo do you have something more specific?
16:27:14 <aleecia> Other last questions?
16:27:16 <ifette> ... and analysis of whether those UIs lead consumers to make informed choices
16:27:17 <aleecia> We end in 3 minutes
16:27:28 <ifette> ... some case law in form of consent decrees re what affirmative consent would look like
16:27:37 <ifette> ... Sear's consent decree has some language in that regard
16:27:44 <aleecia> Sears is fascinating
16:27:55 <ifette> ... in past, commission has said we have to be careful re issuing blanket statements on cosnent, e.g. opt-in or opt-out
16:28:05 <ifette> ... can be bad, innefectual models for consnet
16:28:18 <ifette> ... e.g. 15 pages of text with box at the bottom that's the only option for proceeding
16:28:25 <ifette> ... not the greatest model for opt-in consent
16:28:33 <ifette> ... can have a really bad opt-in and a really good opt-out
16:28:35 <ifette> ... depends on UI
16:28:51 <ifette> Aleecia: on opt-in/out, FTC does not take an opinion on whether opt-in/out is required, correct?
16:29:05 <ifette> Chris: In the past, have said in testimony
16:29:09 <Zakim> + +1.239.394.bbee
16:29:11 <ifette> ... will confine to DNT
16:29:14 <aleecia> last call - Rigo or anyone else?
16:29:15 <rigo> a data processor is not really a third party as under control of the data controller. would the processor still be considered third party? That would get beyond EU
16:29:21 <ifette> ... we think an opt-out scheme would address the choice option
16:29:26 <ifette> ... looking for a 
16:29:32 <ifette> ... doesn't really hit it
16:29:36 <ifette> ... was looking for langauge in a footnote
16:29:38 <aleecia> I'm not following, Rigo
16:29:43 <Zakim> - +1.202.344.bbaa
16:29:45 <ifette> ... don't know we've said specifically that opt out is what we're looking for in DNT
16:29:58 <rigo> was my question Aleecia
16:30:03 <ifette> ... but we do have sections on affirmative expressed consent elsewhere in the report, e.g. for sensitive info and material retroactive change
16:30:05 <aleecia> That I got :-)
16:30:08 <ifette> ... and we don't talk about that in DNT section
16:30:11 <aleecia> Not following the "beyond EU"
16:30:16 <ifette> ... commission didn't contemplate having DNT be purely opt-in approach
16:30:32 <ifette> Aleecia: a data processor is not really a third party as under control of the data controller. would the processor still be considered third party? That would get beyond EU
16:30:37 <ifette> s/Alleecia/Rigo
16:30:40 <bryan> Does "opt-out scheme" mean opting out of tracking? i.e. by default tracking is on and the user has to explicitly opt-out?
16:30:42 <ifette> s/Aleecia/Rigo
16:30:51 <ifette> Aleecia: Not sure i understood nuance
16:31:15 <ifette> Chris: If Rigo is talking about service providers operating under control of a first party, then we would historically hold the first party to the obligations that the first party is under
16:31:18 <rigo> yes
16:31:29 <ifette> ... first part has an obligation to make sure service provider complies with obligations to make sure first party doesn't stray
16:31:35 <ifette> s/part/party
16:31:40 <ifette> Aleecia: at 9:31PDT
16:31:47 <ifette> ... if Stu is on the call?
16:31:50 <ifette> ... Chris, thanks for your time
16:31:56 <ifette> ... feel free to stay on as long as you'd like
16:32:03 <ifette> ... if we have additional questions as a group, can email them to you
16:32:14 <ifette> ... has been extremely useful, thanks
16:32:18 <npdoty> +1, thanks to Chris
16:32:21 <ifette> ... Stu will give us a DAA principles summary for 20m
16:32:23 <ifette> ... with questions at end
16:32:30 <ifette> Stu: Hi, nice to be with ya'll
16:32:39 <ifette> ... hope to give you a background and detailed perspective of what DAA is doing
16:32:51 <ifette> ... many people have been involved with DAA directly, some of founding trade associations, IAB / NAI, partiicpating
16:32:57 <ifette> ... in w3c process
16:33:01 <ifette> ... asked if i could explain DAA Standard
16:33:12 <ifette> ... in particular focus on announcement at white house in conjunction with FTC / Commerce
16:33:17 <ifette> ... relating to DNT
16:33:24 <ifette> ... try and keep history brief
16:33:26 <ifette> ... some bg though
16:33:36 <ifette> ... in response to FTC's call for self regulation re behavioural adveritisng
16:33:40 <ifette> ... and even before that
16:33:59 <ifette> ... a number of leading trade associations representing parts of internet data ecosystem, esp behavioural advertising but expanded over time
16:34:03 <ifette> ... came together, 40 companies
16:34:14 <ifette> ... developed 60 page document of standards setting uniform choice for conumsers
16:34:17 <ifette> at aboutads.info
16:34:20 <ifette> or youradchoices.com
16:34:25 <ifette> ... self regulatory standard
16:34:33 <ifette> ... allowing users to exercise choise w.r.t OBA
16:34:42 <aleecia> q?
16:34:42 <ifette> Stu: That standard adopted in 7/2009
16:34:52 <ifette> ... became effective a year later after figuring out technicalities
16:34:57 <Zakim> -Rigo
16:35:07 <ifette> ... built off of NAI Choice Mechanism work, went broader though, all third parties
16:35:13 <ifette> ... entities collecting data across sites over time
16:35:30 <ifette> ... a consumer could go to one place, press one button, get a uniform choice w.r.t limiting collection and use of data for OBA
16:35:33 <ifette> ... FTC report a year later
16:35:37 <ifette> ... final one last weke
16:35:44 <npdoty> s/weke/week/
16:35:47 <ifette> ... called on business community to expand to a broader set of practices, not just limited to OBA
16:35:51 <Zakim> +Rigo
16:35:53 <ifette> ... broader set of practices
16:36:02 <ifette> ... prior to that, 100 third parties in our system
16:36:12 <ifette> ... believe that covers 90-95% of people collecting and using data for OBA
16:36:14 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:36:15 <ifette> Zakim, mute rigo
16:36:15 <Zakim> Rigo should now be muted
16:36:24 <ifette> Stu: over 400 entities honoring choice mechanism
16:36:25 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.239.394.bbee (43%)
16:36:33 <ifette> ... can comply in one of two ways
16:36:43 <ifette> ... tied to that program, adopted ad choices icon
16:36:55 <ifette> ... winds up being in/around an ad that takes consumer to choices w.r.t OBA
16:37:03 <ifette> ... getting over 1 trillion ads serving with this icon monthly
16:37:03 <rigo> thank s Ian
16:37:09 <ifette> ... worked hard to get that icon out there
16:37:20 <ifette> ... launched second major educational campagin
16:37:26 <ifette> ... commissioned by McCann Erickson
16:37:35 <ifette> ... will educate people about icon and choice mechanism set uo
16:37:38 <ifette> s/uo/up
16:37:39 <Zakim> - +1.202.637.bbdd
16:37:50 <ifette> Stu: When FTC issued report, called on business community to do more beyond OBA
16:38:01 <ifette> ... following that, in back and forth with FTC and other entities, Commerce and others
16:38:07 <ifette> ... last fall, in October-ish
16:38:18 <ifette> ... DAA released guidelines for collection and use of multi-site data
16:38:23 <ifette> ... purposes including and beyond OBA
16:38:34 <ifette> ... that standard lays out a more detailed standard re all collection and uses for various purposes
16:38:39 <ifette> ... permitted purposes and also prohibitions
16:39:00 <ifette> ... for certain crtiera, a document with input from trade associations, 40+ companies and back-and-forth input from otehr stakeholders
16:39:07 <ifette> ... that's 20 pages
16:39:09 <bryan> link to that document?
16:39:14 <ifette> ... about 80 pages of detailed standards negotiated so far
16:39:16 <npdoty> http://www.aboutads.info/resource/download/Multi-Site-Data-Principles.pdf
16:39:22 <ifette> ... guidelines were approved through each associationa nd their boards
16:39:29 <ifette> ... representing thousands to tens of thousands of companies
16:39:39 <ifette> ... input from more than just a couple organizations
16:39:43 <Zakim> + +1.516.695.bbff
16:39:58 <ifette> ... put out that standard, challenges faced w.r.t. our standards is persistency
16:40:04 <ifette> ... system has been based on cookies
16:40:06 <npdoty> "including a couple of different non-profit organizations that work out of DC"
16:40:17 <ifette> ... if consumers delete cookies, they delete their choices, which is not particularly useful for businesses or consumers
16:40:24 <ifette> ... over the past few years, trying to address that
16:40:30 <Zakim> + +1.202.637.bbgg
16:40:37 <ifette> ... just a few weeks ago, finalized persistency for Chrome/Mozilla/IE browsers
16:40:40 <ifette> ... up and working today
16:41:04 <ifette> ... should mention also, in conjunction with building these systems, built self-regulatory enforcement regimes
16:41:17 <ifette> ... many success over the years through national ads review counsel, KROO, (missed it)
16:41:31 <ifette> ... recognized as successful by multiple parties incl. government in enhancing compliance
16:41:39 <Zakim> - +1.202.587.bbbb
16:41:43 <ifette> ... had those, DMA program expanded and enhanced
16:41:43 <eberkower> CARU
16:41:53 <ifette> ... and a new program created under BBB and National Ad REview counsel
16:41:54 <eberkower> Children's Advertising Review Unit
16:41:58 <ifette> ... full time enforcement staff hired
16:41:59 <aleecia> "broader than a law could be"
16:42:07 <ifette> ... last 6 months to a year, push towards compliance
16:42:12 <ifette> sorry, this is hard :-) - ifette
16:42:22 <ifette> Stu: Believe we will have increased success given resources put forward
16:42:40 <ifette> ... even though we've improved persistency, back and forth about building choice mechanism or fitting our standard into browser based header mechanism
16:42:54 <ifette> ... we announced in February that the DAA would be honoring browser based header mechanisms
16:43:09 <ifette> ... put specificity into what we would recognize as compliant with DAA principles, laid our parameters and started process to do that
16:43:14 <Zakim> -??P33
16:43:18 <tl> +q to ask: When you talk about "persistence" of preferences in IE, Chrome and Firefox, are you talking about the independence of cookie-clearing and DNT preferences, or are you using a different mechanism to make preferences sticky in browsers.
16:43:27 <Zakim> + +1.202.587.bbhh
16:43:33 <aleecia> DAA Would be honoring browser-based mechanisms, specificity of what we would be complying with in DAA. Have agreement to honor the header mech, but need to coordinate with browser cos
16:43:36 <Zakim> - +1.516.695.bbff
16:43:36 <ifette> ... have agreement we will honor header mechanism, but to figure out exactly how it will work and make sure we are coordinated with browsers will need to be sorted out
16:43:52 <ifette> ... expect expansion tied to this browser mechniam as well as multi-site principles to happen by end of this year
16:44:00 <ifette> ... specifics tied to browser-based choice mechanism
16:44:07 <ifette> ... announcement with WH + FTC chairman
16:44:12 <ifette> ... choice will be exercised by consumer
16:44:19 <ifette> ... rather than set by a default or by a different entity
16:44:35 <tl> q?
16:44:40 <ifette> ... and second, that prior to exercising the choice, there be a description to the consumer of the impact of the choice and how that will work
16:44:41 <ifette> ... believe that will be a positive addition
16:44:46 <ifette> ... to the existing DAA 80+ pages of specs
16:44:55 <Zakim> +??P16
16:45:12 <ifette> ... we believe that will really provide a nice, new tool, and a simpler tool, to consumers, in addition to existing tool that will be continued w.r.t. cookie based mechanism and icon
16:45:15 <aleecia> Tom: I'll favor DNT-based questions to the one you asked (though I share it)
16:45:19 <ifette> ... should be clear, cookie based mechanism and icon will not go away
16:45:19 <npdoty> I believe this is the relevant link from DAA on responding to browser mechanism: http://www.aboutads.info/resource/download/DAA_Commitment.pdf
16:45:25 <ifette> ... strenght of the program, gives great transparency
16:45:29 <ifette> ... will be two different types of choices
16:45:40 <ifette> ... many choices have been exerciised and want to be sure they are honored
16:45:47 <ifette> ... and the persistent mechanisms work well
16:45:57 <ifette> ... will likely be years before this technology is deployed widely in browsers natively
16:46:05 <ifette> ... cookies can also work through other platforms
16:46:12 <ifette> ... this is a nice enhancement, not a subsitutte
16:46:25 <ifette> ... consumers are exercising choice
16:46:28 <aleecia> we'll find a new scribe at break
16:46:31 <ifette> ... more are not exercising than choice than are
16:46:44 <jchester2> +q Please explain what information would be conveyed to the user, prior to exercising their choice, regarding the "impact" of their choice.
16:46:48 <aleecia> no worries, you're awesome
16:46:52 <ifette> ... but prohibitions are something that gives lots of comfort that data won't be used to e.g. impact healthcare, employment
16:46:55 <npdoty> s/subsitutte/substitute/
16:46:56 <ifette> ... three working documents
16:47:00 <aleecia> Jeff: noted
16:47:06 <ifette> ... 60 page behavioural ad document, 20 page multi site document, 2 page white house announcement
16:47:09 <npdoty> q+ jchester2 to Please explain what information would be conveyed to the user, prior to exercising their choice, regarding the "impact" of their choice.
16:47:15 <ifette> ... and working on another page to provide specificity around white house document
16:47:22 <ifette> ... will ultimately roll into a single document
16:47:32 <ifette> ... lots of input from thousands of entities over 4+y ears
16:47:38 <ifette> ... can improve as we go
16:47:43 <ifette> ... have twice redesigned the website
16:47:52 <ifette> ... improving the technlologies as problems are highlighted
16:47:55 <ifette> ... have made great progresss
16:48:01 <ifette> ... happy to report that to you
16:48:07 <ifette> ... that's my presentation, happy to take questions
16:48:13 <ifette> Aleecia: About 12m for questions
16:48:22 <jmayer> Q: I'm trying to understand how the multi-site principles apply to social networks.  To make things concrete: if Facebook were to join the DAA, would the multi-site principles require it to provide an opt out from Like button personalization?
16:48:30 <npdoty> ack jchester2 
16:48:30 <Zakim> jchester2, you wanted to Please explain what information would be conveyed to the user, prior to exercising their choice, regarding the "impact" of their choice.
16:48:36 <ifette> ... first, from Jeff, please explain what info will be conveyed to user prior to exercising their choice and re impact
16:48:37 <tl> Aleecia: I'm also in the queue.
16:48:42 <ifette> Stu: Hoping to get standard language
16:48:46 <ifette> ... happy to get input
16:48:56 <aleecia> I know. Going to favor DNT-based questions, much as I share your question.
16:48:57 <npdoty> q+ jmayer to if Facebook were to join the DAA, would the multi-site principles require it to provide an opt out from Like button personalization?
16:49:02 <Zakim> - +1.914.374.aatt
16:49:04 <aleecia> If queue stays empty I'll hit yours
16:49:15 <ifette> ... will describe the limitations of the data, and that certain data may be collected and used (security and other permitted exceptions under DAA standards)
16:49:26 <ifette> ... and that certain entities will contunie to collect and use data outside these principles
16:49:32 <aleecia> jmayer next
16:49:41 <ifette> ... be clear what the effect of the choice in terms of what it iwll limit and that there will still be data collected under limited purposes
16:49:44 <tl> aleecia: No problem: please prioritize questions! Just making sure it was deliberate, not accidental.
16:49:52 <ifette> ... won't be a 10 page privacy notice
16:49:57 <ifette> ... 2-3 sentences to simply convey to users
16:50:03 <jchester2> +q what do you mean that their choice would "limit" some interaction?
16:50:07 <npdoty> "not a 10-page privacy notice, we're looking at 2 to three sentences to simply convey that to users"
16:50:13 <npdoty> ack jmayer 
16:50:13 <Zakim> jmayer, you wanted to if Facebook were to join the DAA, would the multi-site principles require it to provide an opt out from Like button personalization?
16:50:18 <ifette> Aleecia: Jonathan asks, if Facebook were to join DAA, would principles require it to priovide opt-out from like button personalization
16:50:28 <npdoty> q+ jchester2 to what do you mean that their choice would "limit" some interaction?
16:50:35 <aleecia> q?
16:50:40 <ifette> Stu: Collection of data from sites over itme, when an entity is not logged in, probably falls into those guidelines where choice would apply
16:50:45 <ifette> ... but we need to get more info on this
16:50:53 <ifette> ... needs to be a set standard on where choice applies and doesn't
16:50:56 <ifette> ... committed to addressing
16:51:03 <ifette> ... have raised with companies, need more working out
16:51:09 <mischat> mischat has joined #dnt
16:51:11 <npdoty> I missed part of that, was there a suggestion that logged-in users had different choices?
16:51:13 <npdoty> ack jchester2 
16:51:13 <Zakim> jchester2, you wanted to what do you mean that their choice would "limit" some interaction?
16:51:35 <ifette> Jeff Chester: Thanks for taking time out of your vacation. WHen you said it might limit interaction, what do you mean
16:51:40 <ifette> ... current system, suggest OBA about delivery
16:51:44 <ifette> ... doesn't raise privacy concerns
16:51:49 <ifette> ... do you see this info re-iterating that
16:51:58 <ifette> ... that this is just about giving you ads that are better for you?
16:52:01 <ifette> Stu: We need to go beyond that
16:52:03 <aleecia>  Tom next
16:52:06 <ifette> ... concern from lots of stakeholders
16:52:15 <ifette> ... need to define what else the limitations of collections will be and where it's still permitted
16:52:15 <aleecia> Unless there's someone else?'
16:52:19 <ifette> ... point of multi-site document
16:52:28 <ifette> ... we haven't done a good enough job explaining the value of the multi-site document
16:52:34 <ifette> ... not in place until end of year
16:52:43 <ifette> ... needs to be a descriptiont aht data collection and use is broader than OBA
16:53:08 <ifette> Aleecia: Tom asks when you spoke about persistence of preferences, are you talking about independence of cookie clearing and DNT preferences, or are you using a differnet mechanism
16:53:16 <ifette> Stu: tied to current cookie based mechanism
16:53:19 <ifette> q+ to clarify
16:53:30 <ifette> Stu: Effect is to not delete the opt-out cookies
16:54:06 <ifette> Stu: Tied to not deleting opt out cookies, not the new header mechanism
16:54:08 <npdoty> are we talking about browser extensions, then?
16:54:13 <jmayer> Q: There are some extraordinarily broad exceptions in the original principles and multi-site principles.  Other than the practices specifically prohibited (i.e. ad personalization and particular sensitive collection and use), could you give concrete examples of practices that would be impermissible after a user opts out?
16:54:13 <ifette> Aleecia: Browser extensions, not built in, correct?
16:54:20 <ifette> Stu: WIth respect to the current persistency yes
16:54:24 <ifette> ... but our WH announcement
16:54:29 <ifette> ... is to build this into the browser
16:54:39 <ifette> ... takes longer for deployment though
16:54:42 <npdoty> ack tl
16:54:42 <Zakim> tl, you wanted to ask: When you talk about "persistence" of preferences in IE, Chrome and Firefox, are you talking about the independence of cookie-clearing and DNT preferences, or
16:54:45 <Zakim> ... are you using a different mechanism to make preferences sticky in browsers.
16:54:54 <jchester2> +q.  Does the DAA intend to adopt the DNT standard issued by the W3C?
16:54:55 <aleecia> ian, is that ok?
16:54:57 <ifette> ... for it to work best and with breadth, want all of the above (cookies + extensions + built in)
16:54:59 <ifette> q-
16:55:02 <npdoty> q+ jmayer to ask about broad exceptions in original principles and multi-site principles
16:55:17 <npdoty> q+ jchester to Does the DAA intend to adopt the DNT standard issued by the W3C?
16:55:20 <ifette> Stu: don't anticipate cookie system going away soon, will need to continue all of the above for foreseeable future
16:55:41 <ifette> Aleecia: Jonathan asks, broad exceptions, other htan things explicitly permitted
16:55:46 <ifette> ... what would be impermissible after user opts out
16:55:55 <ifette> Stu: wouldn't characterize exemptions as broad, legitimate uses
16:56:01 <ifette> ... concerns raised over misuse
16:56:02 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:56:05 <aleecia> Jeff next if no new questions
16:56:07 <ifette> ... intend to keep a close eye on that
16:56:14 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.239.394.bbee (100%)
16:56:21 <ifette> ... always problems of interpretations\
16:56:26 <ifette> ... open to suggestions
16:56:40 <ifette> ... after experience in real world, but driven by real legitimate practices in use
16:56:56 <ifette> ... as a premise, don't believe all collection can/should be limited, but need appropriate standards to limit to needed uses or acceptable practices
16:57:02 <ifette> ... a whole range of eligible uses
16:57:07 <Zakim> - +1.813.366.aass
16:57:08 <ifette> ... other than what is prohibited
16:57:17 <ifette> ... prohibited categories based on FCRA type uses
16:57:32 <Zakim> - +1.202.684.aaee
16:57:33 <Zakim> - +1.202.346.aaxx
16:57:34 <ifette> ... even here, concerns that other things could be used not fitting into those prohibitions
16:57:44 <ifette> ... for us, if user exercices choice, limits all of those concerns
16:57:54 <npdoty> "could be other types of eligibility that are important and go beyond the FCRA, and we think our principles apply to all of those"
16:57:55 <ifette> ... very strong standard, walls around where choice would be applied / used
16:58:02 <ifette> ... will result in many limitations of uses / practices
16:58:08 <ifette> ... heard this from FTC and commerce and others
16:58:30 <ifette> ... our view is that we have a great system built, if there are added concenrs as we keep going, that can be concretely articulated, we will address them
16:58:37 <ifette> ... like button is good example
16:58:42 <ifette> ... various interpretations, we will address that
16:58:52 <ifette> Aleecia: what is prohibited?
16:58:59 <ifette> Stu: anything outside of detailed, enumerated practices
16:59:08 <ifette> ... 60 pages of specificying exactly what's permitted, 
16:59:20 <ifette> ... things outside are not permitted if the user exercises choice
16:59:28 <ifette> Aleecia: final question
16:59:33 <npdoty> "eligibility determinations outside of those specifically prohibited"
16:59:38 <ifette> ... from Jeff, does the DAA intend to adopt the DNT standard issued by the W3C
16:59:41 <npdoty> ack jchester2 
16:59:45 <ifette> Stu: it depends onw hat W3C adopts
16:59:46 <npdoty> q- jmayer
16:59:48 <npdoty> q- jchester
16:59:49 <ifette> ... DAA Is its own standalone program
16:59:55 <ifette> ... we intend to follow the DAA standards
17:00:04 <ifette> ... our goal would be that what comes out of W3C is something compatable with DAA standard
17:00:15 <ifette> ... W3C has done a good job over past years in setting tech standards
17:00:16 <npdoty> s/compatable/compatible/
17:00:32 <jchester2> So DAA doesn't intend to follow this multistakeholder recommendation?
17:00:36 <ifette> ... if W3C policies were different from DAA, someone would not be in violation of DAA Principles / Mechanisms because that's not what our standard is
17:00:39 <ifette> ... always open to changes
17:00:51 <ifette> ... but our view is there's a strong program with lots of input over several years that's effective
17:01:02 <ifette> ... not particularly constructive / helpful to have differing stadnards
17:01:08 <ifette> ... not good for businesses or consumers
17:01:16 <ifette> ... lots that's gone into it over the past years
17:01:39 <ifette> ... if you want something widely adopted, my sense is that's pretty much the state of hte art of where you'll get broad deployment
17:01:47 <ifette> ... encourgage you to pass along concerns with DAA standard
17:01:47 <ifette> s
17:01:56 <ifette> Stu: but more effective through DAA mechanism
17:01:59 <jchester2> I think this issue needs to be discussed next week, and that the DAA member groups need to address this at meeting.
17:02:03 <ifette> ... certainty for businesses, consumers, ...
17:02:10 <ifette> Aleecia: Thanks Stu for your time
17:02:14 <npdoty> thanks, Stu
17:02:18 <ifette> ... appreciate taking half hour out of your vacation
17:02:28 <ifette> ... useful to get insight onto what DAA has worked on
17:02:34 <ifette> Stu: Thanks
17:02:44 <aleecia> yep
17:02:54 <Zakim> -efelten
17:02:56 <Zakim> - +1.239.394.bbee
17:03:05 <npdoty> scribenick: npdoty
17:03:11 <ifette> thanks
17:03:27 <JC> JC scribes
17:03:33 <npdoty> scribenick: JC
17:03:37 <jchester2> should we discuss what we just heard from Stu?  Competing standards?
17:03:38 <JC> aleecia
17:03:57 <JC> aleecia: Tom what work are you doing on response mechanism
17:04:03 <aleecia> Thanks JC!
17:04:11 <JC> tom: that is the one thing I am doing
17:04:23 <Zakim> - +1.202.496.aann
17:04:24 <JC> aleecia: need to get text in by Friday for DC
17:04:29 <JC> tom: will do
17:04:37 <JC> aleecia: have combined compliance issues
17:04:46 <WileyS> +q
17:04:50 <npdoty> ack WileyS 
17:04:52 <JC> ... jonathan says he will be find for Friday
17:04:52 <ifette> rrsagent, bookmark?
17:04:52 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2012/04/04-dnt-irc#T17-04-52-1
17:04:58 <JC> ... shane how are you?
17:05:10 <JC> share: we are fine for Friday
17:05:19 <JC> aleecia: singer?
17:05:22 <npdoty> dsinger: not so well yet, but I'm still optimistic
17:05:28 <JC> singer: we should be okay
17:05:38 <JC> singer: i will reach out as needed
17:05:46 <dsriedel> \quit
17:05:54 <Zakim> -dsriedel
17:06:17 <JC> johnsimpson: i think i can have my work by end of Friday
17:06:51 <JC> johnsimpson: i can't speak for jonathan at this point
17:07:09 <JC> aleecia: try to connect with jonathan to avoid authorship issues
17:07:34 <JC> erica: we have been working on something, Justin is on vacation, but will have work by Friday
17:07:45 <JC> aleecia: we will have 5 options to discuss in DC
17:07:47 <npdoty> the interrupt-your-vacation-to-work-on-DNT trend continues
17:07:53 <JC> ... final point is to look at DC agenda
17:07:56 <npdoty> Topic: DC Agenda
17:07:56 <aleecia> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/agenda-2012-10-04-dc.html
17:08:07 <npdoty> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-dc-f2f/
17:08:07 <JC> ... please sign up to get headcount for catering
17:08:22 <JC> ... agenda for DC huge thans to MS :)
17:08:31 <npdoty> s/thans/thanks/
17:08:31 <JC> ... apologize for difficulties
17:08:41 <JC> ... this is great. thanks to Microsoft
17:08:56 <JC> ... Tuesday will be wielcome and goals, process
17:09:05 <JC> ... will send email on process
17:09:10 <npdoty> s/wielcome/welcome/
17:09:18 <JC> ... remainder of day will have presentation on papers
17:09:28 <JC> ... after lunch we will take up 2 issues
17:09:37 <jchester2> Is the press welcome to this event?
17:09:40 <JC> ...logged in state
17:09:46 <Zakim> + +1.516.695.bbii
17:09:47 <JC> ... non-linkable data
17:09:56 <JC> ... may break into separate issues
17:09:58 <Zakim> - +1.202.587.bbhh
17:10:03 <JC> ... from there big issues
17:10:16 <npdoty> jchester2, we often accept interested members of the public as Observers, they should follow up with chairs and me
17:10:22 <JC> ... five different proposals. nine different issues which we will tackle for rest of days
17:10:28 <jchester2> Thks
17:10:31 <JC> ... Wed speed dating for issues
17:10:35 <WileyS> If press is in the room, we shouldn't expect to make much real progress as many will likely hold-back (whereas others will use that as an opportunity to grand stand for the press)
17:10:41 <Zakim> -Rigo
17:10:46 <JC> ... unresolved compliance issues. We will jump into small groups.
17:11:03 <JC> ... Thurs the DNT document. speed dating triage approach
17:11:20 <JC> ...working on APIs for javascript proposals
17:11:41 <JC> ... if you have questions on coments add to IRc
17:11:54 <JC> ... jeff: is press invited?
17:12:01 <fielding> No
17:12:12 <JC> aleecia there may be problems with press agreements from companies
17:12:26 <WileyS> Thank you
17:12:33 <JC> ... press can read notes and individuals can speak to press, press will not be invited
17:12:42 <jchester2> Tha's fine.  But it's a great opportunity to have the media begin focusing on what's going on.
17:12:47 <JC> ... can we exclude people who are on political side?
17:12:52 <JC> ... no we can't do that
17:13:09 <JC> ...final piece observers
17:13:22 <JC> ... observers can come on a space avaiable basis
17:13:38 <JC> ... talk to chairs about submissions
17:13:57 <npdoty> here's the registration link again in case you missed it: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-dc-f2f/
17:14:03 <JC> ... sign up for headcount that will help us understand how many observers we can accept.
17:14:21 <johnsimpson> Any estimates on size of the group in DC?
17:14:23 <jchester2> are we going out to dinner?
17:14:36 <JC> ... size of group in DC? Don't know yet
17:14:47 <JC> ... we will be going out to dinner. Any suggestions?
17:14:50 <npdoty> (we have 30 people registered so far)
17:15:00 <JC> ... there will be self-hosted dinners the first night
17:15:19 <JC> ... Tuesday and Wednesday night self-hosted dinners
17:15:23 <ifette> Lebanese Taverna up at adams morgan :)
17:15:27 <JC> ... 30 signed up so far
17:15:38 <ifette> metro
17:15:42 <ifette> red line :)
17:15:44 <JC> ... Ian thanks for suggestion in Adams market
17:15:47 <enewland> Lebanese Taverna is right near the metro stop
17:15:50 <ifette> s/market/Morgan
17:16:07 <Zakim> -jchester2
17:16:10 <Zakim> - +1.516.695.bbii
17:16:14 <JC> ... let me know if you need help with papers
17:16:18 <Zakim> - +1.917.934.aaqq
17:16:19 <Zakim> - +1.347.599.aaww
17:16:21 <JC> ... thanks see you in DC
17:16:21 <Zakim> - +1.202.637.bbgg
17:16:23 <Zakim> - +1.415.734.aaff
17:16:24 <Zakim> -eberkower
17:16:24 <Zakim> -Joanne
17:16:24 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
17:16:25 <JC> ... adjorned
17:16:25 <Zakim> -WileyS
17:16:25 <Zakim> - +1.202.835.aayy
17:16:26 <Zakim> -johnsimpson
17:16:28 <dsinger> zakim, who was on the call?
17:16:28 <Zakim> - +1.202.344.aakk
17:16:29 <npdoty> thanks
17:16:30 <Zakim> -aleecia
17:16:32 <ifette> i will take care of the minutes
17:16:32 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, dsinger.
17:16:34 <Zakim> -Cyril_Concolato
17:16:35 <aleecia> thanks, JC and Ian
17:16:36 <Zakim> -adrianba
17:16:37 <ifette> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:16:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/04-dnt-minutes.html ifette
17:16:38 <Zakim> - +1.617.733.aauu
17:16:39 <schunter> Aleecia?
17:16:40 <Zakim> -fielding
17:16:41 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has left #dnt
17:16:42 <Zakim> - +1.602.400.aamm
17:16:44 <Zakim> - +1.813.366.aaaa
17:16:44 <npdoty> Zakim, list attendees
17:16:47 <Zakim> -??P14
17:16:48 <Zakim> -bilcorry
17:16:50 <Zakim> -[Apple]
17:16:52 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.813.366.aaaa, +1.408.674.aabb, +1.202.326.aacc, +1.650.253.aadd, +1.202.684.aaee, TL, cOlsen, +1.415.734.aaff, +1.202.587.aagg, dsinger,
17:16:55 <Zakim> ... +1.310.392.aahh, +1.510.859.aaii, +1.646.654.aajj, npdoty, eberkower, johnsimpson, +1.202.344.aakk, +1.408.223.aall, +1.602.400.aamm, +1.202.496.aann, Bryan_Sullivan,
17:16:59 <Zakim> ... +1.301.270.aaoo, +1.215.286.aapp, +1.917.934.aaqq, ifette, +49.721.913.74.aarr, Cyril_Concolato, +1.813.366.aass, jchester2, +1.914.374.aatt, +1.617.733.aauu, +1.714.852.aavv,
17:17:01 <Zakim> ... dsriedel, +1.347.599.aaww, aleecia, JC, fielding, adrianba, +1.202.346.aaxx, bilcorry, +1.202.835.aayy, +1.415.520.aazz, Joanne, Rigo, +1.202.344.bbaa, +1.202.587.bbbb,
17:17:03 <bryan> quick question, is "901 K Street, NW" at Mt Vernon Square in DC?
17:17:04 <Zakim> ... +1.408.349.bbcc, +1.202.637.bbdd, WileyS, schunter, +1.239.394.bbee, +1.516.695.bbff, +1.202.637.bbgg, +1.202.587.bbhh, +1.516.695.bbii
17:17:08 <Zakim> -??P16
17:17:14 <adrianba> adrianba has left #dnt
17:17:14 <npdoty> Zakim, bbee is Stu
17:17:14 <Zakim> sorry, npdoty, I do not recognize a party named 'bbee'
17:17:18 <aleecia> Bryan, it's near
17:17:19 <bryan> there was some concern about getting the addresses wrong
17:17:21 <Zakim> -ifette
17:17:22 <Zakim> -Bryan_Sullivan
17:17:26 <npdoty> Zakim, bbee was Stu
17:17:38 <bryan> thanks
17:18:07 <npdoty> Present+ StuIngis
17:18:28 <npdoty> Zakim, list attendees
17:18:28 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.813.366.aaaa, +1.408.674.aabb, +1.202.326.aacc, +1.650.253.aadd, +1.202.684.aaee, TL, cOlsen, +1.415.734.aaff, +1.202.587.aagg, dsinger,
17:18:31 <Zakim> ... +1.310.392.aahh, +1.510.859.aaii, +1.646.654.aajj, npdoty, eberkower, johnsimpson, +1.202.344.aakk, +1.408.223.aall, +1.602.400.aamm, +1.202.496.aann, Bryan_Sullivan,
17:18:31 <Zakim> ... +1.301.270.aaoo, +1.215.286.aapp, +1.917.934.aaqq, ifette, +49.721.913.74.aarr, Cyril_Concolato, +1.813.366.aass, jchester2, +1.914.374.aatt, +1.617.733.aauu, +1.714.852.aavv,
17:18:34 <Zakim> ... dsriedel, +1.347.599.aaww, aleecia, JC, fielding, adrianba, +1.202.346.aaxx, bilcorry, +1.202.835.aayy, +1.415.520.aazz, Joanne, Rigo, +1.202.344.bbaa, +1.202.587.bbbb,
17:18:34 <Zakim> ... +1.408.349.bbcc, +1.202.637.bbdd, WileyS, schunter, +1.239.394.bbee, +1.516.695.bbff, +1.202.637.bbgg, +1.202.587.bbhh, +1.516.695.bbii
17:18:45 <npdoty> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:18:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/04-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
17:18:50 <npdoty> Zakim, bye
17:18:50 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were +1.813.366.aaaa, +1.408.674.aabb, +1.202.326.aacc, +1.650.253.aadd, +1.202.684.aaee, TL, cOlsen, +1.415.734.aaff, +1.202.587.aagg,
17:18:50 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dnt
17:18:54 <Zakim> ... dsinger, +1.310.392.aahh, +1.510.859.aaii, +1.646.654.aajj, npdoty, eberkower, johnsimpson, +1.202.344.aakk, +1.408.223.aall, +1.602.400.aamm, +1.202.496.aann, Bryan_Sullivan,
17:18:54 <Zakim> ... +1.301.270.aaoo, +1.215.286.aapp, +1.917.934.aaqq, ifette, +49.721.913.74.aarr, Cyril_Concolato, +1.813.366.aass, jchester2, +1.914.374.aatt, +1.617.733.aauu, +1.714.852.aavv,
17:18:58 <Zakim> ... dsriedel, +1.347.599.aaww, aleecia, JC, fielding, adrianba, +1.202.346.aaxx, bilcorry, +1.202.835.aayy, +1.415.520.aazz, Joanne, Rigo, +1.202.344.bbaa, +1.202.587.bbbb,
17:18:58 <Zakim> ... +1.408.349.bbcc, +1.202.637.bbdd, WileyS, schunter, +1.239.394.bbee, +1.516.695.bbff, +1.202.637.bbgg, +1.202.587.bbhh, +1.516.695.bbii
17:19:02 <npdoty> Chair: aleecia
17:19:12 <npdoty> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group teleconference
17:19:28 <npdoty> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:19:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/04-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
17:19:40 <npdoty> Zakim, bye
17:19:47 <npdoty> trackbot, bye
17:19:48 <trackbot> trackbot has left #dnt
17:19:51 <npdoty> rrsagent, bye
17:19:51 <RRSAgent> I see no action items