IRC log of dnt on 2012-09-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:10:52 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:10:52 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/09/26-dnt-irc
15:11:12 [aleecia]: Zakim, this will be dnt
15:11:12 [Zakim]: ok, aleecia; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 49 minutes
15:11:19 [aleecia]: chair: aleecia
15:12:12 [aleecia]: regrets+ Susan, Ted Leung, Lauren Gelman
15:12:34 [tl]: tl has joined #dnt
15:13:26 [aleecia]: good morning, Tom
15:13:40 [aleecia]: rrsagent, make logs public
15:13:48 [aleecia]: agenda?
15:13:58 [aleecia]: and good morning Thomas
15:14:21 [aleecia]: zakim, clear agenda
15:14:21 [Zakim]: agenda cleared
15:15:28 [aleecia]: agenda + Selection of scribe
15:15:43 [aleecia]: agenda+ Review of overdue action items: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
15:15:56 [aleecia]: agenda+ Quick check that callers are identified
15:16:20 [aleecia]: agenda+ Discussion on the following quick summary of where we are on issues
15:17:31 [aleecia]: agenda+ Reminders for the Amsterdam f2f (agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/agenda-2012-10-03-F2F-Amsterdam.html)
15:17:45 [aleecia]: agenda+ Editors' working drafts
15:17:58 [aleecia]: agenda+ Issue-25, Possible exemption for research purposes
15:18:17 [aleecia]: agenda+ Debugging. On the Sept 12 call, we ended after reading the text proposal for debugging from the summary from Nick on Permitted Uses (action-235, available from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0141.html)
15:18:33 [aleecia]: agenda+ General permitted uses requirements.
15:20:49 [aleecia]: agenda+ Log files: review to make sure the texts capture the conversation (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0342.html)
15:21:18 [aleecia]: agenda+ Review of texts for Issue-49, Third party as first party, with action-161, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0154.html
15:21:43 [aleecia]: agenda+ Review of texts for Issue-119, "absolutely not tracking," with Action-252, Nick to reframe via permitted uses, completed here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0115.html and action-253, David Wainberg prefers dropping this all together, including the flag in the TPE, and wrote his proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0137.html
15:21:58 [aleecia]: agenda+ Announce next meeting & adjourn
15:22:33 [aleecia]: agenda?
15:32:00 [adrianba]: adrianba has joined #dnt
15:35:46 [JoeHallCDT]: Good morning, Aleecia! (Sorry for the delayed response, yo)
15:36:20 [aleecia]: No problem. Nice to see you.
15:44:47 [rigo]: rigo has joined #dnt
15:50:04 [fielding]: fielding has joined #dnt
15:50:16 [damiano]: damiano has joined #dnt
15:53:11 [Zakim]: T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:53:19 [Zakim]: +aleecia
15:55:05 [jeffwilson]: jeffwilson has joined #DNT
15:55:30 [justin_]: justin_ has joined #dnt
15:55:34 [WileyS]: WileyS has joined #dnt
15:55:36 [BrendanIAB]: BrendanIAB has joined #dnt
15:55:45 [Zakim]: +jeffwilson
15:56:00 [rigo]: zakim, code?
15:56:00 [Zakim]: the conference code is 87225 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), rigo
15:56:19 [Zakim]: +Rigo
15:56:27 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
15:56:28 [npdoty]: npdoty has joined #dnt
15:56:37 [Zakim]: +ifette
15:56:50 [BrendanIAB]: Zakim, IPcaller is probably me
15:56:51 [Zakim]: +BrendanIAB?; got it
15:57:05 [rigo]: zakim, mute me
15:57:05 [Zakim]: Rigo should now be muted
15:57:16 [Zakim]: +fielding
15:57:21 [mikeo]: mikeo has joined #dnt
15:57:29 [jchester2]: jchester2 has joined #dnt
15:57:30 [Zakim]: +[CDT]
15:57:44 [rigo]: zakim, unmute me
15:57:44 [Zakim]: Rigo should no longer be muted
15:57:45 [Zakim]: +WileyS
15:57:55 [rigo]: zakim, cdt has Joe_Hall
15:57:55 [Zakim]: +Joe_Hall; got it
15:58:08 [johnsimpson]: johnsimpson has joined #dnt
15:58:24 [Zakim]: +npdoty
15:58:30 [Zakim]: +[CDT.a]
15:58:37 [npdoty]: Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:58:37 [Zakim]: On the phone I see aleecia, jeffwilson, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, ifette, fielding, [CDT], WileyS, npdoty, [CDT.a]
15:58:39 [Zakim]: [CDT] has Joe_Hall
15:58:52 [justin_]: zakim, CDT.a has justin_
15:58:53 [Zakim]: +justin_; got it
15:59:01 [dwainberg]: dwainberg has joined #dnt
15:59:01 [dsriedel]: dsriedel has joined #dnt
15:59:04 [Zakim]: +schunter
15:59:10 [suegl]: suegl has joined #dnt
15:59:13 [Zakim]: +jchester2
15:59:16 [WileyS]: Testing
15:59:26 [Zakim]: +damiano
15:59:28 [rigo]: Test failed
15:59:37 [jchester2]: zakim, mute me
15:59:37 [Zakim]: jchester2 should now be muted
15:59:47 [Zakim]: +mikeo
15:59:53 [WileyS]: Rigo :-)
15:59:56 [Zakim]: + +1.408.887.aaaa
16:00:00 [Zakim]: +dsriedel
16:00:05 [dsriedel]: zakim, mute me
16:00:05 [Zakim]: dsriedel should now be muted
16:00:12 [Zakim]: +johnsimpson
16:00:14 [Zakim]: +dwainberg
16:00:30 [JC]: JC has joined #DNT
16:00:32 [Zakim]: - +1.408.887.aaaa
16:00:46 [aleecia]: 408 is not SF :-)
16:00:49 [WileyS]: 408 is more of the bay area - that is the same area code we use at Yahoo!
16:00:49 [aleecia]: 415
16:01:06 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
16:01:12 [WileyS]: But "Zak" already has me so it must be someone else from Silicon Valley
16:01:12 [aleecia]: That Rigo knows roughly where US area codes map to is both impressive and scary :-)
16:01:20 [Zakim]: + +1.408.887.aabb
16:01:26 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft.a]
16:01:28 [suegl]: zakim, [Microsoft] is suegl
16:01:33 [aleecia]: regrets+ Tom Lowenthal
16:01:34 [Zakim]: +RichardWeaver
16:01:34 [v]: v has joined #dnt
16:01:37 [RichardcomScore]: RichardcomScore has joined #dnt
16:01:50 [Zakim]: +vinay
16:01:50 [vinay]: vinay has joined #dnt
16:01:58 [Zakim]: +suegl; got it
16:02:04 [Simon]: Simon has joined #dnt
16:02:06 [aleecia]: Any volunteers to scribe?
16:02:07 [mikeo]: zakim, mute me
16:02:08 [npdoty]: Zakim, aabb is LesliePetrie
16:02:17 [Zakim]: + +1.206.658.aacc
16:02:21 [Zakim]: + +1.303.817.aadd
16:02:39 [Zakim]: mikeo should now be muted
16:02:41 [Zakim]: +LesliePetrie; got it
16:02:42 [Joanne]: Joanne has joined #DNT
16:02:45 [ninjamarnau]: ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
16:02:53 [Simon]: 303 area code is me
16:02:53 [npdoty]: Zakim, aacc is amyc
16:02:58 [npdoty]: Zakim, aadd is Simon
16:03:02 [hwest]: hwest has joined #dnt
16:03:09 [Zakim]: - +1.303.817.aadd
16:03:22 [dsinger]: dsinger has joined #dnt
16:03:30 [Zakim]: +amyc; got it
16:03:32 [Zakim]: sorry, npdoty, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd'
16:03:34 [Zakim]: + +1.917.318.aaee
16:03:34 [Chapell]: Chapell has joined #DNT
16:03:51 [npdoty]: volunteers to scribe?
16:04:16 [Chapell]: hi aleecia that's chapell
16:04:18 [Zakim]: +hwest
16:04:19 [Chapell]: zakim, aaee is Chapell
16:04:29 [Chapell]: sure
16:04:31 [Zakim]: +[Apple]
16:04:33 [Zakim]: + +1.303.817.aaff
16:04:34 [npdoty]: scribenick: Chapell
16:04:35 [aleecia]: agenda?
16:04:35 [dsinger]: zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:04:43 [rigo]: scribenick:Chapell
16:04:47 [npdoty]: Zakim, aaff is Simon
16:04:52 [Zakim]: +Chapell; got it
16:05:05 [fielding]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
16:05:22 [npdoty]: I think Alan sent that out and we're having discussion on the mailing list now
16:05:39 [npdoty]: Zakim, who is making noise?
16:05:54 [Zakim]: +dsinger; got it
16:05:55 [Zakim]: + +1.916.641.aagg
16:05:58 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
16:05:59 [Zakim]: +Simon; got it
16:06:04 [adrianba]: zakim, [Microsoft] is me
16:06:08 [johnsimpson]: Did call fail??
16:06:18 [Joanne]: Zakim, aagg is Joanne
16:06:20 [Zakim]: npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: npdoty (15%), dwainberg (18%)
16:06:32 [Zakim]: +adrianba; got it
16:06:36 [Zakim]: +Joanne; got it
16:06:48 [Chapell]: Amy: will have cleanup of language by friday
16:06:51 [Zakim]: + +1.202.681.aahh
16:06:54 [adrianba]: zakim, mute me
16:06:54 [Zakim]: adrianba should now be muted
16:07:26 [BerinSzoka]: BerinSzoka has joined #DNT
16:07:35 [npdoty]: schunter, can you update those actions in the tracker?
16:07:59 [Chapell]: Action 256: DWainberg -- pending review
16:07:59 [trackbot]: Sorry, couldn't find user - 256
16:08:13 [cblouch]: cblouch has joined #dnt
16:08:57 [npdoty]: heather: couldn't determine the context of the group from the minutes
16:08:58 [johnsimpson]: am back in
16:09:08 [WileyS]: text complete - Vinay found one typo
16:09:25 [Chapell]: SWiley: Third parties acting as first parties language
16:09:35 [rigo]: zakim, who is making noise?
16:09:46 [Zakim]: rigo, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: aleecia (87%), dwainberg (45%)
16:09:57 [rigo]: zakim, mute dwainberg
16:09:57 [Zakim]: dwainberg should now be muted
16:09:57 [Chapell]: .... other than typo, language is ready to go
16:10:00 [npdoty]: WileyS, so the text is here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0150.html
16:10:04 [npdoty]: Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:10:04 [Zakim]: On the phone I see aleecia, jeffwilson, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, ifette, fielding, [CDT], WileyS, npdoty, [CDT.a], schunter, jchester2 (muted), damiano, mikeo (muted), dsriedel (muted),
16:10:08 [Zakim]: ... johnsimpson, dwainberg (muted), suegl, LesliePetrie, [Microsoft.a], RichardWeaver, vinay, amyc, Chapell, hwest, [Apple], Simon, Joanne, adrianba (muted), +1.202.681.aahh
16:10:08 [Zakim]: [CDT.a] has justin_
16:10:08 [Zakim]: [Apple] has dsinger
16:10:08 [Zakim]: [CDT] has Joe_Hall
16:10:16 [BerinSzoka]: I'm 202.642----
16:10:30 [BerinSzoka]: oh
16:10:33 [BerinSzoka]: actually, sorry
16:10:37 [BerinSzoka]: yes, I'm 681
16:10:40 [JoeHallCDT]: zakim, [CDT] is me
16:10:40 [Zakim]: +JoeHallCDT; got it
16:10:42 [BerinSzoka]: called in from a different gtalk this time
16:10:50 [npdoty]: Zakim, aahh is BerinSzoka
16:11:09 [Zakim]: +BerinSzoka; got it
16:11:09 [Chapell]: Aleecia: rundown summary of issues
16:11:31 [Chapell]: .... action 246 -- DWainberg gave a response --- asked for more specifics
16:11:42 [dwainberg]: I'm on it, and expect to have something soon.
16:11:42 [Chapell]: .... change it back to open
16:11:59 [cOlsen]: cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:12:03 [ifette]: ifette has joined #dnt
16:12:13 [Zakim]: +[FTC]
16:12:49 [Chapell]: Issue 148: HWest to ask some sections to the compliance document -- will update to the list
16:13:12 [rigo]: action 119?
16:13:12 [trackbot]: Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
16:13:14 [Chapell]: Issue 119: Absolutely not tracking. Some responses, but not worked through yet
16:13:22 [WileyS]: Rigo, what committment - that a Server is W3C DNT compliant? If that's your angle I completely disagree (but you know that already)
16:13:34 [dsinger]: issue-119?
16:13:34 [trackbot]: ISSUE-119 -- Specify "absolutely not tracking" -- open
16:13:34 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/119
16:14:14 [npdoty]: topic: f2f
16:14:15 [npdoty]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/agenda-2012-10-03-F2F-Amsterdam.html
16:14:15 [WileyS]: Aleecia, requested "Global Considerations" be added to the agenda - what is the status of that request?
16:14:19 [Chapell]: Aleecia: F2F reminders.... see agenda. See specifically day 2 plans to go through all 24 open issues against compliance doc
16:14:22 [johnsimpson]: you're breaking up aleecia
16:14:29 [rigo]: WileyS, we can send a signal back that says: I only pretend to be DNT compliant by sending DNT signals, but I have my fingers crossed behind my back
16:14:36 [JoeHallCDT]: +1
16:15:16 [johnsimpson]: must be my equipment
16:15:19 [ninjamarnau]: * npdoty, still unable to join. I do not even reach the w3c telco system anymore.
16:15:32 [Chapell]: .... strongly suggest that participants read the drafts, what it takes to get to last call and open items
16:15:35 [WileyS]: Rigo, LOL - that of course makes no sense but neither does sending back a technical somehow suggest you're also compliant with a separate policy document.
16:15:59 [WileyS]: Rigo, ...a technical 'signal' somehow...
16:16:12 [rigo]: WileyS, I don't want to do P3P with DNT-tokens
16:16:16 [johnsimpson]: will call back in
16:16:20 [Zakim]: -johnsimpson
16:16:37 [WileyS]: Rigo, that's fine since you don't really implement something in the real-world. those of us that do want it
16:16:45 [Chapell]: NDoty: Our hosts have arranged for dinner and canal boat tour on Wednesday (tentative)
16:16:47 [dwainberg]: "I'm on a boat..."
16:16:55 [JoeHallCDT]: and if you can muster a group for Rijstaffel, that's awesome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rijsttafel
16:17:17 [WileyS]: dsinger, as long as I'm the decider of who is contributing to progress :-)
16:17:34 [Zakim]: +johnsimpson
16:17:39 [WileyS]: tlr - LOL
16:17:56 [Chapell]: Next topic: Editor's working drafts
16:18:22 [Chapell]: Aleecia: some comments on the compliance draft.
16:18:27 [BerinSzoka]: The most important thing to know about Amsterdam is: go see http://www.rijksmuseum.nl
16:19:00 [Chapell]: Jweiss: DWainberg gave significant comments. Justin still going through comments. Lack of consensus on certain points
16:19:01 [Zakim]: + +49.431.98.aaii
16:19:03 [WileyS]: Aleecia, are you going to discuss requests for modification to the agenda?
16:19:10 [rigo]: zakim, aaii is Ninja
16:19:10 [Zakim]: +Ninja; got it
16:19:14 [ninjamarnau]: zakim, aaii is ninjamarnau
16:19:14 [Zakim]: sorry, ninjamarnau, I do not recognize a party named 'aaii'
16:19:29 [rigo]: zakim, Ninja is really ninjamarnau
16:19:29 [Zakim]: +ninjamarnau; got it
16:19:44 [Chapell]: ,,,,, discussions re: permitted uses. Add to draft?
16:19:55 [johnsimpson]: q+
16:20:02 [npdoty]: q+ WileyS on the f2f agenda
16:20:06 [Chapell]: Aleecia: Don't worry about up to the minute changes, but try to get the bulk of the comments as they currently stand
16:20:43 [Chapell]: Schunter: two open issues
16:20:45 [fielding]: TPE has no pending edits at the moment
16:20:46 [npdoty]: q+ on TPE and "option" block
16:21:04 [Chapell]: .... Service priovider flag -- diverging opinions
16:21:20 [Chapell]: ..... call for objections to iron out remaining differences
16:21:33 [dsinger]: I need to align the qualifiers with the compliance permissions, at least
16:21:59 [Chapell]: Aleecia: we will submit the working drafts to w3c by this friday
16:22:03 [Zakim]: +??P6
16:22:22 [Chris_IAB]: Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
16:22:25 [WileyS]: Q?
16:22:28 [aleecia]: q?
16:22:28 [Chris_IAB]: just joined via Skype
16:22:33 [Chris_IAB]: sorry for the late join
16:22:34 [fielding]: I think we have a note on that already
16:22:42 [npdoty]: Zakim, ??P6 is Chris_IAB
16:22:42 [Zakim]: +Chris_IAB; got it
16:22:46 [aleecia]: Then I think we're ok
16:23:14 [aleecia]: ack johnsimpson
16:23:44 [Chapell]: Johnsimpson: confirming - public working draft ready for submission on friday (with a few clarifications)
16:23:53 [Chapell]: .... what about further comments?
16:24:08 [fielding]: Tues
16:24:10 [Chapell]: Aleecia: no more substantive comments before the document is out
16:24:19 [fielding]: (usually)
16:24:34 [aleecia]: ack WileyS
16:24:34 [Zakim]: WileyS, you wanted to comment on the f2f agenda
16:24:34 [tlr]: Tues and Thurs, correct
16:24:59 [npdoty]: further comments would certainly be welcome, just wouldn't be reflected in this particular snapshot publication
16:25:04 [Chapell]: ShaneW: Question on the Agenda re: Global considerations
16:25:09 [aleecia]: +1 Nick
16:25:15 [Chapell]: .... will this receive some time on the agenda?
16:25:30 [Chapell]: Aleecia: some time for small group discussions, tbd.
16:25:31 [rigo]: WileyS: global considerations document: we committed to provide people and want to have some time on the agenda for it
16:25:35 [rigo]: q+
16:25:38 [Zakim]: +cblouch
16:25:41 [Chapell]: ..... we like the idea, trying to find the time in the agenda
16:26:11 [Chapell]: .... Friday is best bet - although that may not work for all
16:26:15 [npdoty]: discussion of a document on the boat? :)
16:27:12 [npdoty]: q- later
16:27:15 [fielding]: host a dinner ;-)
16:27:21 [rigo]: +1
16:27:36 [npdoty]: +1 on Global Considerations Dinner :)
16:27:52 [Joanne]: +1 on dinner
16:28:32 [aleecia]: q?
16:28:33 [Chapell]: Aleecia: happy to pull together a global considerations dinner
16:28:54 [rigo]: ack ri
16:28:56 [Chapell]: ShaneW: sooner the better re: schedules
16:29:08 [aleecia]: ack rigo
16:29:14 [aleecia]: sorry rigo!
16:29:30 [WileyS]: Better for a lunch time meeting if at all possible
16:29:31 [ninjamarnau]: who will be present from the edps?
16:29:36 [Chapell]: Rigo: The Commission will be in the room on Wed and Thurs -- crucial for the global consideration discussion
16:30:04 [rigo]: Ninja, I tried to get Rosa and Achim
16:30:06 [Chapell]: .... perhaps a lunch is better.
16:30:14 [WileyS]: Thank you Rigo
16:30:21 [Chapell]: Rigo to check with folks with the Commission re: scheduling
16:30:25 [WileyS]: Rigo - lunch is better than dinner if at all possible
16:30:34 [aleecia]: ack npdoty
16:30:34 [Zakim]: npdoty, you wanted to comment on TPE and "option" block
16:30:37 [WileyS]: Allows for a day trip (flights in/out of Amsterdam)
16:30:50 [rigo]: exactly
16:31:14 [Chapell]: Npdoty: on the draft, we still have an issue around "user granted exceptions"
16:31:38 [npdoty]: action: rigo to follow up with EU/EC colleagues regarding possible lunch (or dinner?) to talk Global Considerations
16:31:38 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-259 - Follow up with EU/EC colleagues regarding possible lunch (or dinner?) to talk Global Considerations [on Rigo Wenning - due 2012-10-03].
16:31:41 [fielding]: unclear, what is the action?
16:31:42 [Chapell]: Dsinger: people are working out the details of the APIs rather than concerning themselves with structure
16:31:45 [rigo]: +1 to dsinger
16:31:56 [npdoty]: npdoty: remove the "option" block around the exceptions
16:32:11 [Chapell]: .... wants to remove the option block around the exceptions
16:32:36 [Chapell]: Schunter: send a final email to the list, and look to remove by next week
16:32:40 [fielding]: I would be happier if at least one browser committed to deploy it.
16:32:51 [Chapell]: Dpdoty: will sen email
16:32:58 [aleecia]: q?
16:33:01 [npdoty]: s/dpdoty/npdoty/
16:33:03 [aleecia]: agenda?
16:33:06 [npdoty]: s/will sen/will send/
16:33:16 [rigo]: zakim, drop agendum 1
16:33:35 [Zakim]: agendum 1, Selection of scribe, dropped
16:33:36 [Chapell]: Aleecia: everything discussed on from here on in potentially goes into NEXT editor's draft
16:33:41 [dsinger]: issue-25?
16:33:41 [trackbot]: ISSUE-25 -- Possible exemption for research purposes -- pending review
16:33:41 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/25
16:33:49 [npdoty]: topic: issue 25, research purposes
16:33:50 [rigo]: zakim, drop agendum 2
16:33:56 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
16:34:02 [Zakim]: -amyc
16:34:10 [Zakim]: agendum 2, Review of overdue action items: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner, dropped
16:34:12 [aleecia]: q?
16:34:14 [npdoty]: q+
16:34:16 [Chapell]: Aleeica: can we close issue-25? OBjections?
16:34:20 [aleecia]: ack npdoty
16:34:21 [Zakim]: -mikeo
16:34:39 [WileyS]: Market research is highlighted as an element under Aggregate Reporting
16:34:45 [justin_]: "aggregate reporting"
16:34:56 [Chapell]: Npdoty: still have some permitted uses being discussed: Aggregate Reporting
16:35:03 [rigo]: zakim, drop agendum 3
16:35:03 [Zakim]: agendum 3, Quick check that callers are identified, dropped
16:35:12 [justin_]: It's disputed, so we should probably keep it open.
16:35:16 [Zakim]: +ksmith
16:35:20 [amyc]: amyc has joined #dnt
16:35:22 [rigo]: zakim, take up agendum 4
16:35:22 [Zakim]: agendum 4. "Discussion on the following quick summary of where we are on issues" taken up [from aleecia]
16:35:30 [aleecia]: q?
16:35:39 [Chapell]: .... keep it open
16:35:39 [Brooks]: Brooks has joined #dnt
16:35:40 [npdoty]: "re-structuring to reflect reality" :)
16:36:01 [justin_]: I'll put ISSUE-25 in the draft in aggregate reporting.
16:36:14 [Chapell]: Aleecia: need to capture some of the history behind issue-25. Nick to capture
16:36:14 [npdoty]: update issue 25 to refer to the current open question around aggregate reporting as a separate permitted use
16:36:21 [aleecia]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0141.html
16:36:23 [Zakim]: + +1.678.492.aajj
16:36:34 [Zakim]: +efelten
16:36:37 [npdoty]: I understand that we do have agreement on market research itself not being a separate permitted use
16:36:39 [rigo]: zakim, take up agendum 8
16:36:39 [Zakim]: agendum 8. "Debugging. On the Sept 12 call, we ended after reading the text proposal for debugging from the summary from Nick on Permitted Uses (action-235, available from
16:36:42 [Zakim]: ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0141.html)" taken up [from aleecia]
16:37:07 [aleecia]: To the extent reasonably necessary for inspection of product bugs and performance, third parties may engage in tracking. Use of graduated response is preferred.
16:37:07 [aleecia]: Operators MAY retain data related to a communication in a third-party context to use for identifying and repairing bugs in functionality. As described in the general requirements [reference to Minimization section], services MAY collect and retain data from DNT:1 users ONLY when reasonably necessary to identify and repair errors in functionality. Services SHOULD use graduated responses where feasible.
16:37:19 [Brooks]: 678 580 is Brooks just joining
16:37:54 [npdoty]: Zakim, aajj is probably Brooks
16:37:54 [Zakim]: +Brooks?; got it
16:38:02 [dsinger]: Notes that this is also under the general requirements for all permissions (that data collected for a permission cannot be used for other purposes)
16:38:17 [dwainberg]: zakim, unmute dwainberg
16:38:17 [Zakim]: dwainberg should no longer be muted
16:39:21 [npdoty]: can someone point me to dwainberg's text here?
16:39:38 [rigo]: I would introduce "strictly bound to debugging purpose"
16:39:39 [dwainberg]: Parties may collect and use data in any way to the extent reasonably necessary for the detection and prevention of malicious or illegitimate activity.
16:40:03 [fielding]: for security/fraud: Parties may collect and use data in any way to the extent reasonably necessary for the detection and prevention of malicious or illegitimate activity.
16:40:17 [Chris_IAB]: debugging = product development?
16:40:23 [rigo]: no
16:40:32 [rigo]: debugging == debugging
16:40:36 [justin_]: So, dwainberg, are you against retaining the language about preferring graduated response? Your answer was unclear.
16:40:58 [dwainberg]: I'm not sure what purpose it serves.
16:41:06 [rigo]: Chris_IAB, you can only debug a product that already exists
16:41:12 [aleecia]: q?
16:41:15 [npdoty]: q+
16:41:16 [fielding]: q+
16:41:20 [aleecia]: ack npdoty
16:41:22 [Chris_IAB]: with all respect rigo, just as a clarification, debugging is in fact a part of ongoing product development
16:41:32 [ifette]: q+ to say i have no idea what graduated responses means
16:41:48 [WileyS]: Rigo, Chris could be suggesting "product improvement" (as development could mean something net new or something that is evolving from its current state)
16:41:56 [aleecia]: debugging v. security confusion on my part -- not helpful! -- sorry, all
16:41:58 [JoeHallCDT]: Chris_IAB debugging may be a subset of product development, but there's a lot more under that umbrella
16:41:58 [Chapell]: Dpdoty: graduated response came from discussions in bellevue
16:42:09 [aleecia]: q?
16:42:11 [dwainberg]: q+
16:42:13 [npdoty]: s/dpdoty/npdoty/
16:42:16 [dsinger]: we need a definition of graduated response; we use it in several places. "As you dig deeper, and know you need more data, then turn on the collection then."
16:42:16 [aleecia]: ack Fielding
16:42:28 [adrianba]: we also discussed it in the debug session
16:42:39 [Chris_IAB]: fair enough points all; I just wonder if all of this can be effectively handled under the same condition model?
16:42:45 [Chapell]: Rfielding: graduated response came from security discussion not the debugging discussion -- doesn't belong in bebugging
16:42:55 [rigo]: WileyS: product improvement is a semantically loaden term in our area
16:42:56 [adrianba]: s/discussed it/discussed graduated response/
16:43:00 [WileyS]: debugging a 3rd party ad network - one individual reports the bug but you need to look at the data of many to confirm the source of the issue
16:43:02 [rigo]: +1 to roy
16:43:14 [Chapell]: Fielding: not sure how this deserves a seperate exception
16:43:31 [justin_]: I do not feel very strongly, and "reasonably necessary" should effectively mean the same thing.
16:43:53 [aleecia]: q?
16:44:02 [aleecia]: ack ifette
16:44:02 [Zakim]: ifette, you wanted to say i have no idea what graduated responses means
16:44:25 [WileyS]: Publisher reports an error with an ad showing on their site - requires you look at the data of many users seeing the add to see what variables may be driving the source of this issue. Not only user reported issues (althought that's a valid source as well)
16:44:47 [ifette]: :)
16:44:53 [JoeHallCDT]: npdoty that sounds like the UC Berkeley I School graduate student bullpen that I know and love
16:44:58 [npdoty]: Zakim, who is making noise?
16:44:58 [aleecia]: ack dwainberg
16:45:10 [Zakim]: npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (22%), dwainberg (81%)
16:45:16 [aleecia]: presumably someone put us on mute :-(
16:45:21 [rigo]: zakim, mute schunter
16:45:21 [Zakim]: schunter should now be muted
16:45:33 [aleecia]: or rather, hold
16:45:51 [Zakim]: -Joanne
16:45:53 [Chapell]: Dwainberg: don't understand the purpose of the language. It hinders our goals by offering too much explanitory text. When we say "to the extent reasonably necessary for..." is enough
16:45:54 [ksmith]: ksmith has joined #DNT
16:45:55 [aleecia]: Non-normative explanation: This permitted use is intended for short-term diagnosis and repair of third-party Web functionality, commonly in real time. Long-term retention of all data is not compatible with this permitted use. This permitted use is not intended to cover broad quality assurance measurements.
16:45:58 [WileyS]: Roy, do those examples give you enough context?
16:46:03 [npdoty]: q+ on "illegitimate"
16:46:08 [dsinger]: q+
16:46:15 [Chapell]: .... big terms like graduated responses may lead to confusion and ambiguity
16:46:15 [justin_]: Shrug. Fine.
16:46:20 [npdoty]: q-
16:46:38 [aleecia]: q?
16:46:44 [fielding]: the short-term should be normative
16:46:54 [aleecia]: ack dsinger
16:47:00 [npdoty]: I understand that we're talking about the debugging use, not the security/fraud use
16:47:02 [justin_]: +1 to fielding
16:47:24 [aleecia]: Debugging not security: so sorry to have started us down the wrong path
16:47:49 [WileyS]: DSigner - doesn't represent the real-world. We have bugs EVERY day, not just SOME day. :-)
16:47:51 [Chapell]: Dsinger: the graduated response language means that you are able to collect a bit more data because you suspect you have a specific problem that needs to be diagnosed
16:48:09 [fielding]: My software does not have bugs every day. ;-)
16:48:11 [dwainberg]: q+
16:48:11 [aleecia]: q?
16:48:15 [jchester2]: +1 Singer
16:48:26 [aleecia]: ack dwainberg
16:48:29 [adrianba]: +1 to dsinger's description
16:48:40 [Chapell]: * Chapell notes that Google is recruiting ringers for the next battle of the ad industry bands
16:48:48 [Chris_IAB]: LOL WileyS, you mean that all of our commercial code is flawed? No way ;)
16:48:54 [WileyS]: Roy, Your users may implement things incorrectly such that they point the finger at your software as being the source (when they're really the problem).
16:49:03 [dsinger]: I know that bugs are eternal, but specific issues that warrant collection of specific data are not
16:49:15 [fielding]: I'll give them a full refund on Apache
16:49:31 [fielding]: q+
16:49:37 [WileyS]: Chris, with over 160 platforms and products - we definitely generate bugs everyday.
16:49:38 [johnsimpson]: did call fail
16:49:51 [WileyS]: Roy, LOL - you get what you pay for!
16:49:54 [Chapell]: Dwainberg: talking about debugging for DNT in particular
16:50:04 [Zakim]: -johnsimpson
16:50:11 [fielding]: johnsimpson, we are still on
16:50:12 [Chapell]: .... What are "Broad quality assurance measures"?
16:50:20 [Chris_IAB]: WileyS, I'm totally with you... Bugs are reported constantly (not all are bugs in the end)
16:50:29 [justin_]: You're allowed a 6-week (or so) grace period anyway, do we need extra retention beyond that for prophylactic debugging?
16:50:43 [dsinger]: I think it suggests you are not collecting data either (a) to make sure you don't have a bug or (b) in case a bug turns up.
16:50:47 [Zakim]: +johnsimpson
16:50:55 [WileyS]: chris, but you need to data to determine if the report is truly a bug or not - and then diagnose the source if it is.
16:50:59 [aleecia]: ack ifette
16:51:10 [Chris_IAB]: justin_, I agree with your premise in general, just not the 6-weeks part
16:51:19 [WileyS]: +1 to what Ian just said (all debugging - not just DNT)
16:51:22 [Chapell]: Ifette: Dwainberg assumed that this was bugging in relation to DNT --- Ian's assumption is that this may have nothing to do with DNT
16:51:26 [npdoty]: agree, this is about debugging in general, not just about DNT
16:51:28 [rigo]: +1
16:51:38 [dsinger]: agree with ifette, the BUG might be non-DNT-related (like, you're showing the wrong ads to under-3-year-olds)
16:51:43 [Chris_IAB]: +1 to Ian's point
16:51:44 [Chapell]: .... the point is that one may want to collect additional information from certain users who have DNT enacted -- just to address the bug
16:51:48 [Zakim]: +mikeo
16:52:07 [aleecia]: so at that point, why not debug just with the non-DNT:1 users if possible?
16:52:08 [mikeo]: zakim, mute me
16:52:08 [Zakim]: mikeo should now be muted
16:52:21 [rigo]: q+
16:52:22 [aleecia]: if you have a very small set, that makes sense to me
16:52:22 [justin_]: Chris_IAB, ha, not meaning to weigh in on the call-for-objections issue, just saying we should keep that grace period in mind . . .
16:52:25 [WileyS]: DSinger, is this a common problem for Apple, showing ads to under 3 year olds?
16:52:57 [aleecia]: that makes sense to me
16:53:13 [npdoty]: if you're worried specifically about retaining too much data for DNT users and trying to debug that, I'm not sure we need a permitted use to retain more data on those users
16:53:16 [dsinger]: WileyS, rumors of pending regulations in Elbonia around neonatal advertising etc. :-)
16:53:31 [aleecia]: and: agree this is not *limited* to debugging DNT:1 users
16:53:33 [JoeHallCDT]: and it's not just about debugging DNT, it's about needing to collect data that DNT would otherwise prevent
16:53:40 [JoeHallCDT]: +1
16:53:42 [Chapell]: Ifette: If you get a signal that some of your users are experiencing an issue, and you know you need additional data to debug, this tries to create some flexibilty for that scenario
16:53:50 [Zakim]: -ifette
16:53:52 [WileyS]: dsinger, but that's the best time to program them though!
16:54:47 [aleecia]: q?
16:54:58 [aleecia]: ack fielding
16:55:15 [Chris_IAB]: Potential response to DNT user: we see your bug, but we can't fix it because you are not allowing us enough information to fix it... sound good? I'm not sure...
16:55:21 [BrendanIAB]: hah
16:55:24 [aleecia]: short term & diagnostic
16:55:37 [aleecia]: ack rigo
16:55:39 [npdoty]: fielding: really think this should be short term and diagnostic
16:55:51 [Chapell]: Fielding: cautions against others from trying to have this exception apply to data collection in the long term and/or a broad based exception for data collection
16:56:08 [npdoty]: I'm hearing fielding's suggestion that we add something related to "short term" or "diagnostics" into the normative text, not just explanatory text
16:56:28 [ksmith]: Chris_IAB - problem with that is - often the bug is not visible to the end user.
16:56:52 [aleecia]: And I"m hearing questions about what graduated response means
16:57:04 [aleecia]: With suggestions from David Singer there
16:57:06 [Chapell]: Rigo: short retention on debugging data is key
16:57:22 [Chris_IAB]: ksmith, I agree. I think we should allow data collection and retention for the purpose of debugging and ongoing product development/improvement. Full stop.
16:57:25 [npdoty]: ... debugging a precise, understood term
16:57:27 [BrendanIAB]: Non-normative text of "try not to use DNT:1 data" doesn't seem necessary if it's clearly "for debugging"
16:57:56 [aleecia]: q?
16:58:50 [WileyS]: Remove "graduated response"
16:58:58 [dwainberg]: +1 WileyS
16:59:00 [WileyS]: +q
16:59:07 [fielding]: not graduated response (it doesn't even make sense for security)
16:59:16 [aleecia]: ack WileyS
16:59:17 [rigo]: sure, but get short retention and debugging purpose
16:59:20 [dwainberg]: Also remove "tracking"?
16:59:38 [Chapell]: WileyS: Graduated response will be difficult to explain
16:59:39 [amyc]: suggest that concept and text of reasonableness would be good substite for graduated response
17:00:03 [BrendanIAB]: Isn't moving from "
17:00:04 [Chapell]: Aleecia: wants Nick to use Graduated Response for now -- may take it out
17:00:04 [rigo]: WileyS, we could replace the compliance spec by one sentence: be reasonable. But that may be subject to dispute :)
17:00:18 [justin_]: Does anyone want to argue on behalf of graduated response? I do not if "reasonably necessary" is in there.
17:00:22 [WileyS]: Rigo, I like that - AmyC said something similar
17:00:27 [npdoty]: action: doty to update debugging text (add normative 'short term', 'diagnostic', expand on or replace "graduated response")
17:00:35 [dsinger]: so, (a) specific problem (not general anxiety) (b) short-term (not indefinite) and (c) proportional/graduated response (only the data you reasonably need)? and the last is in anxiety/dispute?
17:00:45 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-260 - Update debugging text (add normative 'short term', 'diagnostic', expand on or replace "graduated response") [on Nick Doty - due 2012-10-03].
17:01:04 [jchester2]: +I think graduated response is more effective for users
17:01:06 [BrendanIAB]: Isn't moving from "I am not collecting DNT:1 traffic" to "I am collecting DNT:1 traffic for debugging" a two-stage "graduated response" anyway? Calling out "graduated response" seems redundant.
17:01:29 [WileyS]: -q
17:01:30 [aleecia]: q?
17:01:37 [rigo]: jchester2, doubt that, "graduate response" was the name of the NATO doctrine to nuke the russians
17:01:47 [aleecia]: Research: collection and use of identifiable data for market research or other longitudinal aggregation purposes is not generally within the context of a particular request; only unlinkable data may be retained for this purpose. As described above, identifiable data can be stored during short term logging to generate aggregate reports.
17:01:48 [aleecia]: Changes from the editors' draft: Remove "Aggregate Reporting" section. Ensure that unlinkable data is prominently declared out of scope of these requirements earlier in the document. Ensure that the "Short Term" permitted use makes it clear that retaining identifiable data for the short term is allowed for creating aggregate reports.
17:03:23 [rigo]: q+
17:03:24 [jchester2]: What do we mean short term for ID retention? Is that linked to a specific campaign?
17:03:30 [aleecia]: ack rigo
17:04:01 [WileyS]: Rigo, I believe its the definition of "unlinkablity" that is the bigger confusion
17:04:02 [jchester2]: +Rigo
17:04:03 [Chapell]: Rigo: complexity, not consensus, explains lack of response
17:04:06 [npdoty]: jchester2, I mean "short term" to refer to the separate short term logging permitted use (which might be 6 weeks, or whatever the group comes down on)
17:04:29 [Chapell]: Rigo: what is the minimum requirement on the aggregate information?
17:05:02 [Chapell]: ... Aggregate is fine, but please make sure that you can't re-identify in order to avoid discrimination
17:05:04 [jchester2]: Nick, I think that's do vague for this key area. It needs a discussion to understand the contours and impact of such use.
17:05:14 [dwainberg]: q+
17:05:16 [justin_]: I think that the text is clear that you cannot maintain non-deidenfitied data for the purpose of research/improvement.
17:05:30 [npdoty]: jchester2, can you explain more?
17:05:33 [aleecia]: q?
17:05:40 [aleecia]: ack dwainberg
17:05:54 [WileyS]: Justin, agreed - you'd maintain the data only to develop the aggregate outcome to then do market research and product development
17:06:04 [npdoty]: I think rigo's point is that defining unlinkable is the difficult part
17:06:07 [fielding]: justin_, non-deidentified? ouch
17:06:08 [npdoty]: q+
17:06:21 [Chapell]: Dwainberg: Doesn't understabnd "not generallyin the context of a particular request"
17:06:25 [jchester2]: Market research has changed in terms of capabilities and use, inc. in the real time targeting context. So I hope our market research colleagues and others can discuss how it's used today and the implications for DNT:1
17:06:28 [justin_]: fielding, You know what I mean!
17:06:28 [JoeHallCDT]: fiedling, using double negatives like that is an art
17:06:30 [rigo]: WileyS, we have to come up with a plausible process of transforming personal data to unlinkable data, not define unlinkable data
17:06:43 [Chapell]: npdoty: Not proposing this as text for the document.
17:06:57 [rigo]: so we just define that process, not the quality itself
17:07:11 [rigo]: because "unlinkable is a moving target"
17:07:24 [WileyS]: Rigo, I believe those are one in the same
17:07:33 [npdoty]: apologies for the formatting, which was apparently very confusing :)
17:07:41 [justin_]: rigo, there is a separate outstanding question of what consistutes unlinkabling
17:07:42 [npdoty]: q-
17:07:46 [dwainberg]: yes
17:07:51 [aleecia]: q?
17:07:53 [jchester2]: Yes, I think!
17:07:56 [Zakim]: -damiano
17:08:28 [npdoty]: npdoty: intended "generally within the context" to explain the reasoning for this permitted use, not as new text
17:08:37 [johnsimpson]: say again what we have agreement on..
17:08:48 [Chris_IAB]: I like unsinkable Ed :)
17:08:56 [Chapell]: Aleecia: action item: editors make changes for NEXT editors draft
17:08:57 [justin_]: Sure
17:09:15 [jchester2]: we might have more consensus if it was just unsinkable!
17:09:27 [johnsimpson]: thanks got it
17:09:43 [Zakim]: +damiano
17:10:00 [npdoty]: agreement to remove this as a separate permitted use and move the discussion to the unlinkable definition
17:10:22 [aleecia]: * Legal Compliance: as previously agreed, legal requirements overrule prohibitions of this standard, though contractual obligations do not.
17:10:22 [aleecia]: Adherence to laws, legal and judicial process, and regulations take precedence over this standard when applicable, but contractual obligations do not.
17:10:23 [aleecia]: Changes from the editors' draft: Replace "Compliance With Local Laws and Public Purposes" section with previously agreed upon text (5/23/2012).
17:10:43 [jchester2]: Oh you folks in academia! Always making obscure references
17:10:47 [npdoty]: action: brookman to update draft to remove aggregate permitted use, highlight unlinkable section where discussion may continue
17:10:47 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-261 - Update draft to remove aggregate permitted use, highlight unlinkable section where discussion may continue [on Justin Brookman - due 2012-10-03].
17:11:19 [rigo]: is there a link for that text?
17:11:41 [JoeHallCDT]: JoeHallCDT has left #dnt
17:11:41 [npdoty]: q+
17:11:47 [aleecia]: ack npdoty
17:11:51 [Chris_IAB]: depending on jurisdiction, common legality could be tied to contract legality
17:12:01 [jchester2]: Shane. Yes, we are all getting sinking feeling. Hopefully cured before F2F!
17:12:02 [Chapell]: Aleecia: this ties into what Nick and I are discussing re: Permitted Uses
17:12:03 [rigo]: q+
17:12:03 [JoeHallCDT]: JoeHallCDT has joined #dnt
17:12:03 [amyc]: q+
17:12:08 [aleecia]: ack rigo
17:12:16 [fielding]: Nick's text: Adherence to laws, legal and judicial process, and regulations take precedence over this standard when applicable, but contractual obligations do not.
17:12:23 [npdoty]: s/Aleecia: this/Aleecia, this/
17:12:42 [dwainberg]: q+
17:12:55 [zach]: zach has joined #dnt
17:12:55 [npdoty]: npdoty: just proposing the text that we agreed on in May, which may have gotten confused as editors combined new text
17:13:02 [WileyS]: EU Data Retention Directive
17:13:13 [aleecia]: q?
17:13:17 [aleecia]: ack amyc
17:14:03 [dsinger]: q+
17:14:06 [Chapell]: Amyc: Discussions in Bellevue. Existing contractual obligations vs new terms....
17:14:24 [npdoty]: was there broad consensus in the room around that? grandfathering existing contracts?
17:14:24 [Chapell]: .... granfathering concept for existing contracts are not embodied in current text
17:14:29 [Chris_IAB]: Devils advocate on a potential 3rd-rail topic: What/who decides what is a "law" then? Which states are recognized by the W3C?
17:14:37 [Chapell]: Amcy: to add additional language to address
17:14:41 [dwainberg]: q-
17:14:42 [vinay]: Amy - I can help you with it
17:14:46 [rigo]: Chris_IAB, all!
17:14:46 [dwainberg]: q+
17:14:53 [amyc]: thanks
17:15:08 [aleecia]: ack dsinger
17:15:26 [npdoty]: action: colando to draft text regarding existing contracts (with vinay)
17:15:26 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-262 - Draft text regarding existing contracts (with vinay) [on Amy Colando - due 2012-10-03].
17:15:34 [dsinger]: thinks we should not say that doing something contrary to the spec. in order to comply with local law is *compliant* but may be *needed*, and maybe we need a qualifier to indicate (as previously discussed)
17:15:39 [Chris_IAB]: Rigo, for example, does tribal law in the US, where the tribe is legally a sovereign state able to make it's own laws, work for you?
17:15:40 [Chapell]: Dsinger: "it may be necessary for you not to comply with this specification in order to comply with local law"
17:15:51 [Zakim]: -schunter
17:15:52 [rigo]: Chris_IAB, sure!
17:16:06 [Chris_IAB]: Rigo, if so, then all ad networks may move to American Indian reservations, and help them enact new laws...
17:16:08 [aleecia]: q?
17:16:09 [npdoty]: dsinger, I think that point was raised in earlier discussion, and we came to agreement on this text
17:16:09 [amyc]: think there is a eparate section and issue regarding spec compliance
17:16:15 [aleecia]: ack dwainberg
17:16:43 [rigo]: Chris_IAB, they didn't move yet to the Caiman Islands or to the turkish part of Cyprus?
17:16:52 [Chris_IAB]: local law = city government laws and regulations too?
17:16:52 [Chapell]: Dwainberg: This ties into the concept of enabling parties to communicate that their honoring of DNT may be different from that outlined in the spec
17:17:09 [Chapell]: .... agrees with the concept about not creating contractual loopholes
17:17:17 [tlr]: "applicable law"
17:17:18 [npdoty]: if you agree with the concept and we came to consensus on this several months ago....
17:17:35 [Chapell]: Aleecia: suggests that DWainberg work with Npdoty
17:17:44 [rigo]: tlr, "applicable" may be the main headache
17:18:01 [tlr]: we can't solve what's applicable. So we just say "comply with applicable law, please"
17:18:05 [aleecia]: q?
17:18:08 [fielding]: I am struggling to understand why we need this clause -- no other specification I've worked on needs to point out that local laws might apply
17:18:13 [Chris_IAB]: rigo, they haven't moved... yet.
17:18:22 [Chapell]: What might be bother Dwainberg is the example that I've outlined in IRC
17:18:24 [amyc]: david, welcome your participation in my action :-)
17:18:29 [aleecia]: * Identifiers: flexibility is provided to implementers on how they accomplish permitted uses and minimize data retention and use. Implementers are advised to avoid data collection for DNT:1 users where feasible to enable external confidence.
17:18:30 [aleecia]: Placing third-party cookies with unique identifiers (and other techniques for linking data to a user, user agent or device) are permitted where reasonably necessary for a permitted use. Requirements on minimization and secondary use, however, provide limitations on when any collection technique is compatible with a Do Not Track preference and what the implications of that collection are.
17:18:31 [aleecia]: To give flexibility to implementers in accomplishing the requirements of this specification and the listed permitted uses, no particular data collection techniques are prescribed or prohibited.
17:18:32 [Chapell]: re: the pharma company self-reg requirements that may fall outside of what 'the law' says, but must be complied with nonetheless
17:18:32 [aleecia]: Implementers are advised that collection of user data under a Do Not Track preference (including using unique tracking cookies or browser fingerprinting) may reduce external auditability, monitoring and user confidence and that retention of such data may imply liability in certain jurisdictions in cases of secondary use; for more information, see the Global Considerations.
17:19:08 [dwainberg]: Alan, what was that example? I missed it?
17:19:18 [dwainberg]: amy, yes, I'll be happy to
17:19:20 [Chris_IAB]: Rigo- Interesting that a state wishing to induce commerce, might create laws that are favorable to industry, in an effort to circumvent DNT... given this provision.
17:19:32 [aleecia]: so by "identifiers" we mean "unique identifiers"
17:20:15 [Chris_IAB]: Rigo, do laws include case law in addition to stated law?
17:21:01 [WileyS]: Great work Nick on threading the unique ID needle
17:21:08 [fielding]: No idea where it goes in spec.
17:21:09 [rigo]: Chris_IAB sure
17:21:16 [WileyS]: +1
17:21:26 [johnsimpson]: -1
17:21:26 [Chapell]: Aleeica: Straw poll. +1 if you can live with this text
17:21:28 [fielding]: +1
17:21:30 [Chapell]: +1
17:21:30 [jchester2]: -1
17:21:32 [rigo]: +1
17:21:34 [justin_]: +1
17:21:35 [dwainberg]: +1
17:21:36 [Chris_IAB]: Rigo, it may be more wise to stay away from the "law" provision in general, and stay silent...
17:21:37 [Chris_IAB]: +1
17:21:38 [npdoty]: fielding, we currently have this section on identifiers: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#no-persistent-identifiers
17:21:39 [Brooks]: +1
17:21:42 [jeffwilson]: +1
17:21:45 [hwest]: +1
17:21:47 [dsriedel]: +1
17:21:49 [BerinSzoka]: +1
17:21:50 [vinay]: +1 (though same company -- Adobe -- as Roy)
17:21:55 [Simon]: +1
17:22:14 [rigo]: Chris_IAB, nope, this is a rule of conflict. And we clearly say that law overrules. This is essential for later regionalization
17:22:28 [ninjamarnau]: ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
17:22:35 [npdoty]: johnsimpson or jchester2, is it possible to elaborate on those concerns? (via email or a separate call is fine)
17:22:55 [Chris_IAB]: Rigo, respectfully, I think that weakens the spec, but it's your call I suppose
17:23:12 [aleecia]: * Minimization
17:23:13 [aleecia]: A third party MUST ONLY retain information for a permitted use for as long as is reasonably necessary for that use. Third parties MUST make reasonable data minimization efforts to ensure that only the data necessary for the permitted use is retained. A third party MUST provide public transparency of their data retention period; third parties may enumerate each individually if they vary across Permitted Uses. Once the period of time for which a party has declare
17:23:14 [aleecia]: data retention for a given use, the data must not be used for that permitted use. After there are no remaining Permitted Uses for given data, the data must be deleted or rendered unlinkable.
17:23:16 [aleecia]: Where feasible, a third party SHOULD NOT collect linkable data when that data is not reasonably necessary for one of the permitted uses. In particular, data not necessary for a communication (for example, cookie data, URI parameters, unique identifiers inserted by a network intermediary) MUST NOT be retained unless reasonably necessary for a particular permitted use.
17:23:18 [aleecia]: Changes from the editors' draft: Add collection limitation requirements.
17:23:20 [aleecia]: Note: it may be that this is the only time a requirement/prohibition is necessary regarding "collection". All other requirements would be prohibitions on retention (beyond what is necessary, or beyond a short-term logging period) or sharing. A definition of collection, then, is only needed for this minimization concept. "Tracking" can be defined through "retention", "use" and "share" only.
17:23:22 [WileyS]: johnsimpson or jchester2, could you please provide the details of your concerns on the public email list?
17:23:26 [rigo]: W3C is no ruling authority, just a platform that creates useful things
17:24:09 [npdoty]: text before "Changes from the editors' draft" is the normative text, text after that heading describes the changes
17:24:51 [npdoty]: the paragraphs with MUST ONLY, MUST and SHOULD NOT would be the normative text
17:25:02 [dsinger]: q+
17:25:06 [aleecia]: ack dsinger
17:25:14 [npdoty]: q+
17:25:21 [aleecia]: ack npdoty
17:25:41 [aleecia]: * Secondary Use
17:25:41 [aleecia]: A third party MUST NOT use data retained for a particular permitted use for any other purpose.
17:25:43 [aleecia]: Changes from the editors' draft:
17:25:44 [aleecia]: Clarify that data retained for one purpose cannot be re-purposed (even if the second purpose might be related to another permitted use).
17:25:44 [aleecia]: Note: This does not require keeping separate copies of data for different permitted uses (agreement in Seattle that a single copy is allowable), but does require that data retained for one stated purpose cannot be repurposed, even in aggregate form. (See resolution at the end of: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/21-dnt-minutes#item08)
17:26:38 [Zakim]: -[CDT.a]
17:26:42 [Chapell]: Aleecia: IFette had text from Seattle that was helpful
17:26:53 [fielding]: q+
17:27:00 [aleecia]: ack fielding
17:27:24 [johnsimpson]: Where is Nick's text now? Just on email list?
17:27:29 [ninjamarnau]: ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
17:27:32 [ninjamarnau]: q+
17:27:44 [npdoty]: if someone has a pointer to Ian's text that would be useful, please point me to it
17:27:46 [Chapell]: Fielding: has concerns with last sentence
17:27:58 [fielding]: this one: In particular, data not necessary for a communication (for example, cookie data, URI parameters, unique identifiers inserted by a network intermediary) MUST NOT be retained unless reasonably necessary for a particular permitted use.
17:28:26 [rigo]: Ninja, After there are no remaining Permitted Uses for given data, the data must be deleted or rendered unlinkable.
17:28:46 [dsinger]: maybe it should say "In particular, data not necessary for a communication (such data might be cookie data, URI parameters…" to respond to Roy?
17:28:56 [dsinger]: q+
17:29:05 [ninjamarnau]: q-
17:29:07 [rigo]: .. should be only kept for that particular permitted use, shift in use shouldn't be possible
17:29:16 [rigo]: ... or shift in purpose
17:29:18 [fielding]: the sentences before that are sufficient (and more accurate)
17:30:03 [Zakim]: -[Microsoft]
17:30:08 [aleecia]: q?
17:30:47 [Zakim]: -Brooks?
17:30:52 [Zakim]: -ksmith
17:31:04 [ksmith]: ksmith has left #DNT
17:31:11 [dwainberg]: It's redundant, isn't it?
17:31:13 [WileyS]: +q
17:31:18 [npdoty]: q- dsinger
17:31:20 [dwainberg]: and adds potential for confusion
17:31:23 [rigo]: I don't think it is redundant
17:31:23 [Zakim]: -hwest
17:31:26 [aleecia]: q?
17:31:33 [rigo]: ack WileyS
17:31:38 [dwainberg]: "MUST only retain ... " says enough doesn't it?
17:32:24 [WileyS]: Oh well, I tried. :-)
17:32:39 [Zakim]: -mikeo
17:32:40 [npdoty]: I'll take an action to try to address that, thanks WileyS for the promising suggestion
17:32:43 [Zakim]: -damiano
17:32:47 [rigo]: move (examples) at the end of sentence
17:33:11 [rigo]: ninja wants to contribute text to minimization? Action?
17:33:31 [npdoty]: action: ninja to provide updated text regarding minimization (with nick)
17:33:31 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-263 - Provide updated text regarding minimization (with nick) [on Ninja Marnau - due 2012-10-03].
17:33:41 [mikeo]: q
17:33:57 [Zakim]: -[FTC]
17:33:58 [Zakim]: -[Microsoft.a]
17:33:59 [Zakim]: -RichardWeaver
17:33:59 [Zakim]: -efelten
17:34:00 [Zakim]: -aleecia
17:34:00 [Zakim]: -WileyS
17:34:01 [Zakim]: -cblouch
17:34:02 [Zakim]: -vinay
17:34:02 [JoeHallCDT]: JoeHallCDT has left #dnt
17:34:04 [Zakim]: -ninjamarnau
17:34:06 [Zakim]: -dsriedel
17:34:08 [Zakim]: -LesliePetrie
17:34:10 [Zakim]: -Simon
17:34:12 [Zakim]: -[Apple]
17:34:14 [npdoty]: we will have a call-in bridge and ability to see screens remotely
17:34:14 [Zakim]: -jeffwilson
17:34:16 [npdoty]: adjourned.
17:34:16 [Zakim]: -Rigo
17:34:18 [Zakim]: -johnsimpson
17:34:20 [Zakim]: -Chapell
17:34:22 [Zakim]: -suegl
17:34:24 [Zakim]: -adrianba
17:34:26 [Zakim]: -Chris_IAB
17:34:28 [npdoty]: zakim, list attendees
17:34:28 [Zakim]: -fielding
17:34:29 [aleecia]: RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
17:34:30 [Zakim]: -BerinSzoka
17:34:32 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been aleecia, jeffwilson, Rigo, ifette, BrendanIAB?, fielding, WileyS, Joe_Hall, npdoty, justin_, schunter, jchester2, damiano, mikeo,
17:34:35 [Zakim]: ... +1.408.887.aaaa, dsriedel, johnsimpson, dwainberg, +1.408.887.aabb, RichardWeaver, vinay, suegl, +1.206.658.aacc, +1.303.817.aadd, LesliePetrie, amyc, +1.917.318.aaee, hwest,
17:34:38 [Zakim]: ... +1.303.817.aaff, Chapell, dsinger, +1.916.641.aagg, Simon, adrianba, Joanne, +1.202.681.aahh, JoeHallCDT, BerinSzoka, [FTC], +49.431.98.aaii, ninjamarnau, Chris_IAB, cblouch,
17:34:39 [aleecia]: RRSAgent, make minutes
17:34:39 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/09/26-dnt-minutes.html aleecia
17:34:41 [Zakim]: ... [Microsoft], ksmith, +1.678.492.aajj, efelten, Brooks?
17:34:43 [Zakim]: -BrendanIAB?
17:34:47 [cblouch]: cblouch has left #dnt
17:38:10 [Zakim]: -jchester2
17:56:29 [Zakim]: -JoeHallCDT
17:59:37 [johnsimpson]: johnsimpson has left #dnt
18:06:32 [mischat]: mischat has joined #dnt
18:29:48 [mischat]: mischat has joined #dnt
18:57:55 [Zakim]: -npdoty
18:59:37 [Zakim]: -dwainberg
18:59:38 [Zakim]: T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
18:59:38 [Zakim]: Attendees were aleecia, jeffwilson, Rigo, ifette, BrendanIAB?, fielding, WileyS, Joe_Hall, npdoty, justin_, schunter, jchester2, damiano, mikeo, +1.408.887.aaaa, dsriedel,
18:59:38 [Zakim]: ... johnsimpson, dwainberg, +1.408.887.aabb, RichardWeaver, vinay, suegl, +1.206.658.aacc, +1.303.817.aadd, LesliePetrie, amyc, +1.917.318.aaee, hwest, +1.303.817.aaff, Chapell,
18:59:40 [Zakim]: ... dsinger, +1.916.641.aagg, Simon, adrianba, Joanne, +1.202.681.aahh, JoeHallCDT, BerinSzoka, [FTC], +49.431.98.aaii, ninjamarnau, Chris_IAB, cblouch, [Microsoft], ksmith,
18:59:40 [Zakim]: ... +1.678.492.aajj, efelten, Brooks?
21:06:43 [schunter]: schunter has joined #dnt
21:24:37 [tl]: tl has joined #dnt
22:27:37 [mamund]: mamund has joined #dnt
23:00:11 [tl]: tl has joined #dnt
23:38:40 [npdoty]: npdoty has joined #dnt