16:53:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
16:53:51 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/05-dnt-irc
16:53:51 <JackHobaugh> JackHobaugh has joined #dnt
16:53:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:53:55 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be TRACK
16:53:55 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
16:53:56 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
16:53:56 <trackbot> Date: 05 February 2014
16:54:11 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
16:54:18 <Zakim> +??P10
16:54:19 <Zakim> -??P10
16:54:19 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
16:54:19 <Zakim> Attendees were
16:54:33 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
16:54:40 <Zakim> +??P9
16:54:45 <schunter> Zakim, ??P9 is schunter
16:54:45 <Zakim> +schunter; got it
16:55:01 <ninja> trackbot, status?
16:56:27 <ninja> zakim, call ninja-mobile
16:56:27 <Zakim> ok, ninja; the call is being made
16:56:28 <eberkower> eberkower has joined #dnt
16:56:29 <Zakim> +Ninja
16:57:31 <Zakim> +MECallahan
16:57:45 <mecallahan> mecallahan has joined #dnt
16:57:59 <schunter> Hi Ninja!
16:58:00 <moneill2> moneill2 has joined #dnt
16:58:01 <Zakim> +eberkower
16:58:14 <eberkower> Zakim, mute me please
16:58:14 <Zakim> eberkower should now be muted
16:58:59 <Ari> Ari has joined #dnt
16:58:59 <Zakim> +[Apple]
16:59:07 <dsinger> zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:59:07 <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
16:59:19 <ninja> Chair: schunter, justin, carlcargill
16:59:19 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:59:38 <moneill2> akim, [IPCaller] is me
16:59:39 <Zakim> +Wendy
16:59:40 <Zakim> +Jeff
16:59:51 <moneill2> zakim, [IPCaller] is me
16:59:51 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
17:00:08 <Zakim> +Chris_IAB
17:00:09 <ninja> Regrets: ShaneWiley, LeeTien, JohnSimpson, WaltervanHolst
17:00:17 <Chris_IAB> I just dialed in
17:01:26 <justin> justin has joined #dnt
17:01:34 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
17:01:39 <Zakim> +JackHobaugh
17:01:47 <Zakim> +kulick
17:02:08 <Zakim> +[CDT]
17:02:11 <justin> zakim, cdt has me
17:02:11 <Zakim> +justin; got it
17:02:16 <justin> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:02:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see schunter, Ninja, MECallahan, eberkower (muted), [Apple], moneill2, Wendy, Jeff, Chris_IAB, JackHobaugh, kulick, [CDT]
17:02:18 <Zakim> [CDT] has justin
17:02:18 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
17:02:19 <kulick> kulick has joined #dnt
17:02:22 <Zakim> +npdoty
17:02:33 <Zakim> +Carl_Cargill
17:02:50 <Zakim> +hefferjr
17:03:04 <sidstamm> sidstamm has joined #dnt
17:03:08 <npdoty> Regrets+ WileyS, LeeTien, walter, johnsimpson
17:03:28 <Zakim> +Chris_Pedigo
17:03:42 <vinay> vinay has joined #dnt
17:03:44 <GSHans> GSHans has joined #dnt
17:03:46 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
17:03:49 <sidstamm> Zakim, Mozilla has me
17:03:49 <Zakim> +sidstamm; got it
17:04:04 <npdoty> trackbot, start meeting
17:04:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
17:04:07 <Zakim> +vinay
17:04:08 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be TRACK
17:04:09 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
17:04:09 <trackbot> Date: 05 February 2014
17:04:09 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM already started
17:04:09 <ninja> trackbot, start meeting
17:04:13 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
17:04:15 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be TRACK
17:04:15 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM already started
17:04:16 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
17:04:16 <trackbot> Date: 05 February 2014
17:04:34 <Zakim> +Bryan_Sullivan
17:04:35 <npdoty> Zakim, please choose a scribe
17:04:35 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose dsinger
17:04:39 <bryan> bryan has joined #dnt
17:04:58 <npdoty> scribenick: dsinger
17:05:05 <moneill2> i can take over after david
17:05:06 <dsinger> zakim, agenda?
17:05:06 <kj> kj has joined #dnt
17:05:06 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
17:05:08 <Zakim> 1. Confirmation of scribe and caller-identification [from ninja]
17:05:08 <Zakim> 2. ISSUE-239 Announcement of consensus [from ninja]
17:05:08 <Zakim> 3. ISSUE-241: Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that  can be re-used by others (1/3) [from ninja]
17:05:09 <Zakim> 4. ISSUE-240: Do we need to define context? [from ninja]
17:05:09 <Zakim> 5. AoB [from ninja]
17:05:39 <Ari_> Ari_ has joined #dnt
17:05:40 <Zakim> +Peder_Magee
17:05:49 <npdoty> scribenick: moneill2
17:05:53 <Zakim> -[Apple]
17:06:01 <moneill2> ok
17:06:09 <carlcargill> carlcargill has joined #dnt
17:06:13 <_magee> _magee has joined #dnt
17:06:19 <ChrisPedigoOPA> ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
17:06:19 <justin> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:06:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see schunter, Ninja, MECallahan, eberkower (muted), moneill2, Wendy, Jeff, Chris_IAB, JackHobaugh, kulick, [CDT], npdoty, Carl_Cargill, hefferjr, Chris_Pedigo,
17:06:23 <Zakim> ... [Mozilla], vinay, Bryan_Sullivan, Peder_Magee
17:06:23 <Zakim> [CDT] has justin
17:06:23 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
17:06:23 <Zakim> +[Apple]
17:06:28 <ninja> zakim, pick up agendum 2
17:06:28 <Zakim> I don't understand 'pick up agendum 2', ninja
17:06:31 <dsinger> zakim, [apple] has dsinger
17:06:31 <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
17:06:44 <npdoty> Zakim, take up agendum 2
17:06:44 <Zakim> agendum 2. "ISSUE-239 Announcement of consensus" taken up [from ninja]
17:06:46 <dsinger> zakim, take up agendum 2
17:06:46 <Zakim> agendum 2. "ISSUE-239 Announcement of consensus" taken up [from ninja]
17:06:51 <moneill2> issue-239
17:06:52 <trackbot> issue-239 -- Should tracking status representation include an array of links for claiming compliance by reference? -- raised
17:06:52 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/239
17:07:18 <moneill2> matthias: we seem to have reached consensus
17:07:19 <robsherman> robsherman has joined #dnt
17:07:25 <Zakim> + +1.202.370.aaaa
17:07:26 <ninja> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_status_URL_array_for_compliance_regimes
17:07:30 <robsherman> zakim, aaaa is robsherman
17:07:30 <Zakim> +robsherman; got it
17:07:32 <moneill2> matthias: no objections received
17:07:33 <dsinger> issue-239?
17:07:33 <trackbot> issue-239 -- Should tracking status representation include an array of links for claiming compliance by reference? -- raised
17:07:33 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/239
17:07:41 <schunter> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_status_URL_array_for_compliance_regimes
17:08:03 <cOlsen> cOlsen has joined #dnt
17:08:09 <npdoty> editors, I believe this text is already in the draft
17:08:11 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
17:08:20 <Zakim> +Brooks
17:08:22 <moneill2> matthias: 1 or compliance regimes can be claimed, implicitly also w3c regime
17:08:27 <schunter> q?
17:08:48 <Zakim> +[FTC]
17:09:22 <Chris_IAB> trying to catch up after being away… how did the past couple of working group polls net out?
17:09:49 <npdoty> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#rep.compliance
17:10:06 <dsinger> action: dsinger to check that the compliance array is in the TPE spec
17:10:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-435 - Check that the compliance array is in the tpe spec [on David Singer - due 2014-02-12].
17:10:06 <moneill2> matthias, action on dsinger to make sure text in doc
17:10:13 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
17:10:16 <schunter> q?
17:10:23 <Zakim> +WaltMichel
17:10:38 <moneill2> matthias, next item 1st & 3rd party elements
17:10:40 <npdoty> ninja, can you grab pointers to meeting minutes for Chris_IAB?
17:10:46 <npdoty> Zakim, next agendum
17:10:46 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Confirmation of scribe and caller-identification" taken up [from ninja]
17:10:51 <npdoty> Zakim, take up agendum 3
17:10:51 <Zakim> agendum 3. "ISSUE-241: Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that  can be re-used by others (1/3)" taken up [from ninja]
17:10:53 <Zakim> +Fielding
17:10:56 <moneill2> matthias, CfO next
17:11:01 <WaltMichel> WaltMichel has joined #DNT
17:11:19 <npdoty> s/matthias, CfO/matthias: CfO/
17:11:28 <schunter> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_elements_for_1and3_party_use
17:11:49 <dsinger> zakim, who is making noise?
17:12:00 <Zakim> dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (89%), JackHobaugh (4%), Carl_Cargill (72%)
17:12:06 <npdoty> q+
17:12:09 <moneill2> matthias: we have 4 proposals , too many
17:12:22 <npdoty> Zakim, mute Carl_Cargill
17:12:22 <Zakim> Carl_Cargill should now be muted
17:12:51 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
17:13:04 <moneill2> matthias, can we reduce num proposals to 2 & 3
17:13:08 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
17:13:13 <npdoty> s/matthias, can/matthias: can/
17:13:14 <npdoty> q?
17:13:17 <justin> The question is does anyone support the old version from last public working draft?
17:13:22 <schunter> ack np
17:13:24 <Zakim> +dwainberg
17:13:36 <schunter> Proposal 2 and proposal 3 should be renamed to proposal 1 and proposal 2.
17:14:01 <moneill2> npdoty: only 2 & 3 are relevant
17:14:17 <kulick> q+
17:14:20 <moneill2> matthias: 2 proposals remove prop 1
17:14:30 <schunter> ack ku
17:14:37 <fielding> "usage in third-party contexts" is not going to work with other WG decisions
17:15:10 <susanisrael> susanisrael has joined #dnt
17:15:11 <Zakim> +Susan_Israel
17:15:25 <moneill2> kulick: need to understans, both allow for 1st or 3rd party
17:15:27 <fielding> q+
17:15:48 <fielding> q-
17:15:51 <npdoty> kulick, even with Proposal 3 (silence), it could be done, we just wouldn't have a common definition/signal yet
17:15:53 <moneill2> matthias:, p2 is define it in TPE, p2 not defined in TPE but may be in TPC
17:16:08 <Chris_IAB> schunter, would it be possible to have the proposal owners present their proposals on this call, before we move to Cfo?
17:16:10 <fielding> ditto what Matthias just said --- the only difference is that proposal 2 has a definition in TPE
17:16:12 <Zakim> +[Apple.a]
17:16:17 <hober> Zakim, Apple.a has me
17:16:17 <Zakim> +hober; got it
17:16:32 <dsinger> q+
17:16:38 <schunter> ack d
17:16:43 <fielding> q+
17:16:45 <Chris_IAB> q+
17:16:56 <moneill2> matthias: if tpc have different rules, this is how to declare
17:16:58 <robsherman> +q
17:17:13 <schunter> ack fi
17:17:19 <moneill2> dsinger:, its not just TPC could indicate useful info in TPE
17:17:23 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
17:17:28 <Chris_IAB> hard to hear Roy… echoey
17:17:32 <JackHobaugh> Roy, you are cutting out.
17:17:34 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: JackHobaugh (36%)
17:17:37 <kulick> didnt get all of that
17:17:53 <moneill2> fielding: i suggest other contexts other tahn 3rd party
17:17:55 <fielding> will irc
17:18:10 <JackHobaugh> no echo, but Roy's VoIP appears to be somewhat clipped.
17:18:15 <fielding> yes, everything else is okay
17:18:21 <schunter> q?
17:18:25 <JackHobaugh> I am muted at my phone
17:18:25 <fielding> or "other controllers' contexts"
17:18:27 <schunter> Ack Ch
17:18:28 <moneill2> matthias: do you mean 1 is first party, 3 is everything else?
17:18:35 <Zakim> -Fielding
17:18:58 <Zakim> +Fielding
17:19:20 <moneill2> Chris_IAB: could we all proposers are on call, so they can present them?
17:19:59 <moneill2> matthias: nick can summerise his again
17:20:18 <npdoty> ack robsherman
17:20:50 <moneill2> robsherman: does not need CfO
17:20:59 <Chapell> Chapell has joined #DNT
17:21:09 <fielding> To clarify what I meant to say, the "usage in third-party contexts" part of proposal 2 does not match definition of context. Saying "other contexts" for 3 would be better.
17:21:25 <moneill2> robsherman: idea is to preserve 1 and 3 qualifiers, important to have them
17:21:58 <npdoty> how about "usage as a first-party" and "usage as a third-party"? to avoid "context" altogether, if we're defining that term in a different way
17:22:01 <dsinger> given the confusion over the meaning of 'context' I agree to remove it from the third party defn
17:22:17 <moneill2> robsherman: phrase "other contexts" not meaningful
17:22:20 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
17:22:22 <adrianba> zakim, [Microsoft] is me
17:22:22 <Zakim> +adrianba; got it
17:22:27 <adrianba> zakim, mute me
17:22:27 <Zakim> adrianba should now be muted
17:22:30 <fielding> npdoty, fine as well (note that I still don't want these definitions in the spec, I just want to make them less bad)
17:23:01 <moneill2> Chris_IAB: try for consensus first before CfO
17:23:16 <Zakim> +Chapell
17:23:18 <schunter> q?
17:23:30 <moneill2> robsherman: maybe we can resolve this with Roy offline
17:23:45 <Chris_IAB> robsherman, good idea :)
17:23:48 <dsinger> If Roy is OK after his edit, I am OK with it
17:23:51 <npdoty> we've discussed it a couple times now, yeah? are there suggestions for getting those positions to agreement?
17:24:09 <Chris_IAB> q+
17:24:11 <Chapell> q+
17:24:29 <moneill2> matthias: do we have this in general for all TPCs or for each
17:24:35 <fielding> I still would prefer that it not be in TPE at all. I am just trying to get the text to the point where either decision would not conflict with other WG decisions.
17:24:37 <schunter> q?
17:24:38 <npdoty> ack Chris_IAB
17:25:07 <robsherman> The suggestion was that we modify the text proposal to address Roy's concern, and if we can address his concern there is no need for two proposals.
17:25:31 <dsinger> yes, it's architectural, but the TPE needs to make sense and provide uniformity of signalling, by itself'
17:25:32 <npdoty> I've changed to "usage as a * party" in the wiki
17:25:48 <Chapell> +1 Chris_IAB
17:25:59 <moneill2> Chris_IAB: have to have a solid line between the documents, maybe most contentios bits should be in TPC
17:26:37 <moneill2> Chris_IAB: its about how to send signals
17:26:52 <bryan> +1 - The TPE is about the protocol, not the intent or adherence to the semantics
17:27:08 <npdoty> q?
17:27:11 <schunter> q?
17:27:14 <moneill2> matthias: how do we reach consensus?
17:27:15 <npdoty> q+
17:27:27 <schunter> ack Ch
17:27:28 <npdoty> ack Chapell
17:27:57 <npdoty> do we mean "edits" like the usage/context thing?
17:28:01 <moneill2> Chapell: can live with Roy's proposal, will participate id OK with them
17:28:03 <npdoty> I believe the updated text is:
17:28:04 <npdoty> While different compliance regimes can define requirements and uses of certain qualifiers, and a particular compliance regime might not require the use of qualifiers for particular activities to be permitted, the following qualifiers have the defined, descriptive meanings.
17:28:05 <npdoty>  "1": the resource is designed for usage as a first party
17:28:06 <npdoty>  "3": the resource is designed for usage as a third party
17:28:10 <Chris_IAB> there are two things we probably shouldn't conflate: the definition itself, AND where that definition exists (TPE vs Compliance) -- we should be careful to separate the issues accordingly
17:28:23 <Chris_IAB> q+
17:28:23 <robsherman> +q
17:28:34 <moneill2> Chapell, can you type that in I missed it
17:28:36 <dsinger> q+
17:29:08 <schunter> ack np
17:29:49 <schunter> ack Ch
17:29:50 <moneill2> npdoty: can set up a call tomorrow to see how we can combine
17:30:06 <Chapell> I (and I believe others - some of whom are not on the call today) would object to the use of 1st party / 3rd party definitions anywhere. in Compliance or TPE. Not looking to necessarily debate this point here and now, but Matthias had indicated that 'nobody' was objecting to that langauge, it was a question of 'where it goes'
17:30:26 <Chapell> So, for the record... I am objecting
17:30:35 <moneill2> Chris_IAB: we must not conflate where def is and what signal describes
17:30:35 <npdoty> we already have a definition. this text doesn't create new definitions.
17:30:41 <justin> chapell, The group has already settled on definitions on party, first party, and third party.  Those issues are closed.
17:30:46 <fielding> Chris_IAB, this discussion is about use of a term in TPE.  If the term exists in TPE, it will be define in TPE.
17:30:58 <fielding> s/define/defined/
17:31:01 <moneill2> Matthias: only about 1 & 3 in TPE
17:31:14 <Chapell> Justin, npdoty, that's fine... but lets not confuse the decision of the chairs with group consensus on an issue
17:31:34 <schunter> q?
17:31:37 <schunter> ack ro
17:31:42 <moneill2> Matthias: or leave it to TPCs
17:32:32 <Chris_IAB> QUESTION: does anyone see a world where the TPE would be deployed APART from a compliance document?  If not, then we can comfortably move definitions into compliance docs.  Arguments to that logic?
17:32:52 <fielding> I did look at it. It does not address my concerns.
17:33:01 <moneill2> robsherman: befor we should go forward Roy and me should talk
17:33:15 <justin> Chris_IAB, The TPE defines the parameters of the DNT signal.  To the extent elements of that signal need to be defined, TPE must define them.
17:33:16 <fielding> My concern is that we DO NOT need "first party" and "third party" in TPE.
17:33:36 <moneill2> Matthias: while we have 1st & 3rd parties, if nobody uses them the defs go away
17:33:40 <dsinger> we don't use the term 'tracking' either
17:33:42 <Chris_IAB> justin, you need only define what a signal is, not what it means
17:33:54 <fielding> dsinger, what spec are you reading?
17:33:55 <schunter> q?
17:33:56 <moneill2> matthias: maybe in complaince regime
17:34:00 <schunter> ack dsi
17:34:22 <justin> Chris_IAB, No, that is not correct.  The group has defined what the signal is intended to convey.  That issue is closed.
17:34:24 <moneill2> dsinger: if TPCs dont need 1 & 3 signal, they dont need to require them
17:34:38 <Chris_IAB> justin, anyway, the TPE is not deployed in a silo by itself
17:34:56 <ninja> Chris_IAB, this may be true for the server side. But the user is not able to choose a compliance regime. So a basic setting of scope and meaning of his DNT;1 or 0 signal is useful.
17:34:56 <moneill2> dsinger: anxious that 1 & 3 signal was not machine testable
17:35:02 <Chris_IAB> justin, I continue to disagree with this approach… it's too much of a slippery slope
17:35:18 <fielding> honestly, dsinger, that is absurd
17:35:18 <moneill2> dsinger: we dont need tracking in the TPE either
17:35:28 <Chris_IAB> q+
17:35:32 <schunter> IMHO we do since we have a signal "0" Not tracking
17:35:39 <fielding> tarcking="N"
17:35:52 <npdoty> fielding, is there a constructive way that you can express that concern to dsinger?
17:35:56 <fielding> tracking="N" is a functional part of the spec
17:35:57 <moneill2> dsinger: signal important in own right for user
17:35:57 <Chris_IAB> q+
17:36:00 <Chapell> Chris_IAB for some reason, the chairs seem intent on porting many definitions as possible - over the objections of many within the group
17:36:09 <fielding> DNT:1 is a signal within the spec
17:36:10 <Chris_IAB> q+
17:36:28 <schunter> ack Ch
17:36:36 <moneill2> matthias: By end of week we decide if to forward to CfO
17:36:58 <justin> Chris_IAB, No one is telling you what to do in response to the DNT signal.  That's what a compliance regime determines.
17:37:19 <moneill2> Chris_IAB: TPE must have an assiciated TPC for implementation, docs then become one
17:37:49 <npdoty> Chris_IAB, the group, based on issue-239, made a decision to not make normative references to the Compliance document and its definitions
17:38:10 <moneill2> matthias: TPE defines user prefs, sites use TPC to decide what they do
17:38:12 <npdoty> ... which is why we've been spending time on removing references, and making sure the terms are defined
17:39:04 <moneill2> Chris_IAB: we made decision to bifurcate
17:39:09 <schunter> Zakim, who is making noise?
17:39:22 <Zakim> schunter, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (7%), Chris_IAB (7%), JackHobaugh (15%), [CDT] (74%)
17:39:37 <JackHobaugh> i am muted
17:39:46 <schunter> I would not call CDTs input noise, though ;-)
17:39:56 <schunter> Zakim, mute JackHobaugh
17:39:56 <Zakim> JackHobaugh should now be muted
17:39:56 <moneill2> justin: its an optional field, you dont have to use it (in TPC), but group has made decision
17:40:10 <schunter> Jack: IMHO you caused some echo.
17:40:25 <moneill2> Chris_IAB: there is a conflict
17:40:28 <JackHobaugh> I am muted locally.
17:40:34 <JackHobaugh> I have been for the duration of this call.
17:40:47 <moneill2> justin: pput your objection down in CfO
17:41:13 <Chapell> Justin: I don't understand how one might offer a different interpretation of first and third party given the significant history there.
17:41:21 <justin> zakim, unmute jackHobaugh
17:41:21 <Zakim> JackHobaugh should no longer be muted
17:41:34 <Zakim> -Susan_Israel
17:41:54 <justin> jackhobaugh, is there something you want to add?
17:41:55 <moneill2> matthias: i would like to woork twds CfO, Roys proposal claer, prop1 needs more work
17:42:03 <dsinger> I think we should edit proposal 1 in line with Roy's suggestion, as the authors of it seem OK with that
17:42:10 <JackHobaugh> I get that, feel free to mute me at your end.
17:42:17 <npdoty> dsinger, indeed, I've made that edit
17:42:26 <justin> zakim, mute jackhobaugh
17:42:26 <Zakim> JackHobaugh should now be muted
17:42:36 <moneill2> matthis: next issue 240
17:42:41 <schunter> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_the_definition_of_context
17:42:44 <fielding> issue-240?
17:42:44 <trackbot> issue-240 -- Do we need to define context? -- open
17:42:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/240
17:42:50 <ninja> zakim, take up agendum 4
17:42:50 <Zakim> agendum 4. "ISSUE-240: Do we need to define context?" taken up [from ninja]
17:43:15 <npdoty> action: doty to follow up with 241 proposers (dsinger, fielding, robsherman at least) to finalize proposals / see if consensus is possible
17:43:15 <trackbot> Created ACTION-436 - Follow up with 241 proposers (dsinger, fielding, robsherman at least) to finalize proposals / see if consensus is possible [on Nick Doty - due 2014-02-12].
17:43:26 <npdoty> action-436 due February 7
17:43:27 <trackbot> Set action-436 Follow up with 241 proposers (dsinger, fielding, robsherman at least) to finalize proposals / see if consensus is possible due date to 2014-02-07.
17:44:50 <moneill2> fielding: trying for def give clarification of what user means, from their perpective, slightl dif from prop 5
17:45:10 <moneill2> fielding: prop5 relies on def of parties
17:45:30 <npdoty> prop 1 adds "common data controller" and "group identity"
17:45:45 <kulick> q+
17:45:52 <moneill2> fielding: my def considers separate branding diff contexts
17:45:59 <schunter> q?
17:46:02 <JackHobaugh> Roy, could you explain why you replaced "share" with "with"?
17:46:06 <schunter> ack ku
17:46:34 <npdoty> fielding, would you say that context in your Proposal 1 is a strict subset of party in Proposal 5?
17:46:54 <moneill2> kulick: is second sentence needed?
17:47:19 <npdoty> second sentence: "    A context represents a typical user's expectations regarding the boundaries of a commonly branded Web site (i.e., what makes it distinct from sites with a different group identity) independent of the technology, domain names, or parties operating that site via one or more origin servers. "
17:47:37 <moneill2> fielding: cant understand it without second sentence, prefer to keep it
17:47:59 <moneill2> matthias: compremise - mark sentence sentence as a note
17:48:20 <fielding> okay on marking it as a note
17:48:37 <fielding> that any *implementer* would understand
17:49:00 <JackHobaugh> I would like to request that M2 be extended a week because we have only had since 3 am today to consider Roy's revised proposal.
17:49:10 <ninja> dsinger, would you be able to take over scribing?
17:49:12 <moneill2> kullick: typical users knowledge not improved by 2nd sentence, complex environment that users might not understand
17:49:18 <schunter> q?
17:49:55 <moneill2> matthias: 2nd sentence as non-normative note
17:50:17 <npdoty> kulick, does that help your concern?
17:50:25 <moneill2> fielding: dont like non-normative para, happy for note at beginning of sentence
17:50:56 <kulick> npdoty, did roy just say add a note to the beginning of the sentence?
17:51:13 <kulick> i would want to understand what the note was
17:51:17 <fielding> I just updated the wiki
17:51:33 <kulick> i do think it would improve it, just not certain i could say i am good with it right now
17:52:00 <npdoty> kulick, the proposal from schunter / fielding was to mark the second sentence as a note
17:52:03 <dsinger> do we need to re-open the "definition of tracking" and change it to say "it's whatever the compliance regime(s) stop you doing when you say you don't track"?
17:52:08 <moneill2> Chris_IAB: cant see TPE being implemented without TPC, slipeery sloper, unzipped them then now zipping back up, certain TPC hampered
17:52:10 <fielding> … to add "Note that a context" where "A context" was at the beginning of sentence 2
17:52:26 <ninja> scribenick: dsinger
17:52:33 <dsinger> q?
17:52:39 <kulick> roy, i see the update. i dont think it makes a difference from what was there before, but I appreciate your willingness to find a compromise
17:52:40 <dsinger> scribenick: dsinger
17:52:55 <justin> Again, Chris_IAB, the decision has made to define tracking in the TPE.  That is closed.  The only question is whether to add more flavor around the idea of context to clarify what tracking means.  However, the TPE does not prescribe what exactly you need to do in response to that request not to be tracked.
17:53:22 <justin> Just trying again to clarify the distinction between the two documents.
17:53:34 <npdoty> +1 to dsinger, does the signal just mean something completely different based on who you're talking to? how should a UA explain that?
17:53:39 <dsinger> mschunbter: proposal 5?
17:54:12 <justin> npdoty, dsinger, no the signal is defined within TPE. Closed issue.
17:54:15 <dsinger> chrispedigo: proposal 5: not so different from Roy's. From implementers perspective may be easier to understand.  Also for a corporate entity.  Tried to keep simple
17:54:42 <dsinger> ...tried to link back to defn of party, so that where transparency is needed, it's more discoverable,
17:54:44 <fielding> would it be better as "Note that this definition of context is intended to represent …"?
17:54:51 <Chris_IAB> justin, you'll remember that I didn't really agree with your closing stance on whether to include a definition of Tracking in the TPE, for every reason we are now encountering (slippery slope).  I don't think I was alone.
17:54:55 <dsinger> also more support for consumers
17:55:06 <dsinger> ...happy to take questions
17:55:07 <schunter> q?
17:55:49 <dsinger> moneill2: proposal 4: associates a context with a data controller, an entity that the user is expecting is collecting or could collect
17:55:58 <dsinger> ...single data controller defines a context
17:55:58 <npdoty> q+
17:56:29 <dsinger> ...if multiple domains are used, then they are in teh same-party array of the WKR, so it's clear that they are udner the same controller
17:57:02 <dsinger> matthias: if we compare with Roy, replaces group identity with branding, reqs the same privacy, and requires discoverability thru the same-party array
17:57:07 <Chris_IAB> Chris_IAB has left #dnt
17:57:15 <dsinger> ...do it's more restrictive in that it introdices requirements
17:57:16 <schunter> q?
17:57:17 <dsinger> moneill2: yes
17:57:21 <schunter> ack n
17:57:24 <dsinger> mschunter: comments?
17:57:31 <Chris_IAB> Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
17:57:57 <dsinger> npdoty: Matthias already touched on: how important is common branding?  Essential?  Easily discernable? Discoverable?
17:58:04 <dsinger> moneill2: OK by me, check with Rob?
17:58:13 <ninja> zakim, mute me
17:58:13 <Zakim> Ninja should now be muted
17:58:17 <dsinger> npdoty: in this case, are they mergable
17:58:19 <dsinger> ?
17:58:31 <dsinger> moneill2: yes, probably so.  let me check with my co-authors
17:58:54 <fielding> My proposal now reads: A context is a set of resources with a common data controller and a group identity that is easily discoverable by a user. Note that this definition of context is intended to represent a typical user's expectations regarding the boundaries of a commonly branded Web site (i.e., what makes it distinct from sites with a different group identity) independent of the technology, domain names, or parties operating that site via one or more origin
17:58:55 <fielding> servers.
17:59:20 <dsinger> mschunter: Roy, one is the language on group identity (maybe not a big deal), and a question for Mike is whether the same-party needs to be required;  then there is the common privacy policy.  Roy, what about these?
17:59:59 <Zakim> +Susan_Israel
18:00:09 <npdoty> right, some companies might write smaller privacy policies for parts of their site
18:00:18 <dsinger> fielding: the problem is that privacy policies tend to be fungible, and apply to a set of resources, so requiring that they all update in lockstep or be identical is not always workable, even if they are aligned (on this question)
18:00:45 <dsinger> mschunter: example is IBM, that had a number of policies that had common elements but were not identical
18:00:55 <moneill2> +q
18:01:15 <dsinger> mschunter: Mike/Rob/Roy to explore a common proposal
18:01:32 <dsinger> mschunter: proposal 5?  can we drop in favor of proposal 1?
18:01:53 <robsherman> +q
18:02:02 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
18:02:59 <dsinger> chrispedigo: I think this is a little cleaner for 1.  Not opposed to Roy's as such. One is a difference about user expectations. There are different ways for a user to come to an expectation.  One is common branding.  Another is easily discoverable.  There is a balance in the defn of party and value in using it.  Please keep it as part of the discussion
18:03:16 <dsinger> mschunter: proposal 6
18:03:35 <kulick> +1 to leaving proposal 5
18:03:45 <dsinger> chris: I think these definitions belong in the compliance and not the TPE
18:03:53 <dsinger> q+ to ask why is tracking in TPE, then?
18:04:22 <dsinger> mschunter: so we seem to have multiple proposals, heading towards call for objections
18:04:25 <schunter> Qß
18:04:26 <justin> ack mo
18:04:29 <dsinger> q-
18:04:30 <schunter> q?
18:04:48 <dsinger> moneill2: I cannot get hold of Rob, so I will get his input by next week, and talk to Roy
18:05:13 <dsinger> robsherman: we decided not to merge 5 and 1, right?
18:05:26 <npdoty> ack robsherman
18:05:30 <justin> q?
18:05:31 <dsinger> justin: yes, there is a logical difference between the two, no immediate plan to combine
18:05:40 <Zakim> -Bryan_Sullivan
18:05:41 <schunter> q?
18:06:06 <dsinger> mschunter: this was the last item on the agenda
18:06:16 <dsinger> justin: let's look at some outstanding issues quickly
18:06:18 <npdoty> agenda?
18:06:18 <dsinger> issue-143?
18:06:18 <trackbot> issue-143 -- Activating a Tracking Preference must require explicit, informed consent from a user -- closed
18:06:18 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/143
18:06:19 <ninja> zakim, take up agendum 5
18:06:21 <Zakim> agendum 5. "AoB" taken up [from ninja]
18:07:42 <dsinger> justin: last week Shane brought up issue 143.  maybe we should put into TPE a way to 'sign' the DNT signal.  "set by Chrome", "set by Cisco", etc.
18:08:12 <dsinger> justin: issue was closed in Sunnyvale last year, the chairs of that epoch decided that there was no support for continuing discussion, and no proposals
18:08:37 <npdoty> issue-194?
18:08:37 <trackbot> issue-194 -- How should we ensure consent of users for DNT inputs? -- open
18:08:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/194
18:08:43 <dsinger> ...we decided to merge it with the general idea in compliance, of how can you ensure that signals are validly sent
18:08:55 <dsinger> (issue 194)
18:09:21 <dsinger> ...absent new info, we are not interested in re-opening now, and given we want to get to last call, maybe testing will reveal a need to re-open
18:09:41 <dsinger> ...but we need to hear idea of other issues we need to consider before last call
18:09:53 <Chris_IAB> q+
18:10:03 <dsinger> ...we will be looking at 240 and 241 soon, and then we'll be done
18:10:29 <dsinger> ...at some point the editors will need to implement the decisions that were made, and we'll be checking whether the result has errors or other questions we need to consider
18:10:36 <schunter> q?
18:10:42 <dsinger> ...so if you see things that need pre-LC discussion, please raise ASAP
18:10:45 <npdoty> ack Chris_IAB
18:10:52 <justin> ack chris_IAB
18:11:11 <Zakim> -Fielding
18:11:31 <dsinger> Chris_IAB: trying to catch up...there were some CfO call recently.  Can you update?  In one case the group was split, I think. Decisions?
18:11:46 <npdoty> I think ninja is keeping the home page up to date with http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/ links to decisions, explanations
18:12:09 <dsinger> chris_IAB: really want to know decisions, before I put input on further CfOs and issues
18:12:15 <dsinger> justin: any one in partic?
18:12:19 <dsinger> chris_IAB: all
18:12:29 <schunter> Nina: Do you have a summary/list of open CfOs?
18:12:50 <dsinger> justin: add-ons is due next week, and the requirement on exceptions after that
18:13:04 <dsinger> chris_IAB: what's the making of sausages like?
18:13:09 <ninja> schunter, Chris_IAB, Regarding Network interaction the chairs have  determined Option B as group consensus - the written decision will go out this week
18:13:23 <ninja> q+
18:13:31 <dsinger> justin: we discuss, we cover multiple time zones, we have other jobs, and we want to make sure we follow all the lines of argument etc.
18:13:42 <ninja> zakim, unmute me
18:13:42 <Zakim> Ninja should no longer be muted
18:14:12 <dsinger> ...on network transaction, we did make a decision, objections were less strong to (B), (The Roy definition), email later today
18:14:38 <Zakim> -adrianba
18:14:38 <dsinger> ...we hear that you'd like answers sooner rather than later, tho we're not sure we see strong dependency
18:15:02 <dsinger> chris_IAB: on every decision and CfO we all need to check that we're consistent, and it takes time for us too.
18:15:19 <dsinger> ...we feel left in w whirlwind sometimes!
18:15:50 <dsinger> justin: I hear you, I want to get these done. One will be sent out later today, and we'll have the other we hope this week, and we'll have answres on the call next week
18:15:54 <justin> q?
18:15:55 <dsinger> chris_IAB: thx
18:16:08 <schunter> q?
18:16:12 <schunter> ack n
18:16:56 <Chris_IAB> q+
18:17:07 <dsinger> ninja: to add to Justin: the last two CfOs, esp. the requirement to handle exceptions, is a tough decision, and we also reached out to the web accessibility WG to check on the use of Javascript.  So, given strong objections, the chairs give it careful consideration
18:17:12 <justin> ack chris
18:17:16 <wseltzer> q+
18:17:29 <dsinger> chris_IAB: whoa, reached out to anothe rparty to help you make a determination? shouldn't we know?
18:17:30 <justin> ack ws
18:18:35 <dsinger> wendy: given the W3C has an accessibility group, when someone raises an accessibility concern in comments, we ask 'is this something you want to take up?' and if they said so, we would have brought it back to the group.  the response was that current screen readers can deal with JS so it was not a blocking issue, or we would have brought it back
18:18:49 <dsinger> justin: Mike has a couple of issues identified
18:19:12 <Zakim> -dwainberg
18:20:14 <dsinger> moneill2: First: the idea, the cross-domain, single-origin problem.  A site with multi domains (Yahoo and Yimg for example). Also the situation Roy alluded to, such as P&G with a single data controller but multiple brands. It's silly to have to ask the user multiple times (perhaps) if the user already thought they gave consent.
18:20:55 <dsinger> moneill2: the thought that it had to reflect the user's thought 'at the time' may be too restrictive.  May want to re-arrange words to allow for that situation.
18:21:18 <dsinger> ...also read that Shane warned not to use european legal words (data controller)
18:21:38 <Zakim> -WaltMichel
18:21:53 <justin> q?
18:21:54 <dsinger> justin: making sure we don't say something we don't mean to say.
18:22:03 <npdoty> thanks for bringing this up, mike, even if I don't 100% understand it yet
18:22:34 <dsinger> ...hopefully folks will look at the language and see what can be improved.  Maybe editors can help?  We may well find contentious
18:22:40 <dsinger> ...the second is a new proposal, IMHO
18:23:25 <Zakim> -[FTC]
18:23:27 <dsinger> moneill2: second: the whole issue of trust between sites and users.  we have the WKR.  Other data controllers can use it.
18:23:58 <npdoty> email from moneill2: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2014Feb/0009.html
18:24:50 <dsinger> justin: basically to allow sites that have Tracking behavior, to allow users to request deletion of past records to the extent possible
18:25:14 <dsinger> justin: we previously agreed that DNT did not apply to old records that are retained, only going forward
18:25:18 <ninja> zakim, mute me
18:25:18 <Zakim> Ninja should now be muted
18:25:41 <npdoty> I could see it more promising as a separate initiative
18:25:45 <kulick> +1 on moving to version 2... this is a big issue and would require much discussion
18:25:56 <npdoty> ... particularly if servers are interested in a standard mechanism
18:25:58 <Zakim> -hefferjr
18:25:59 <dsinger> justin: Shane responded that maybe this is a version 2 question. It does sound like a 'heavy lift' and hesitate to intro something so groundbreaking now
18:26:23 <dsinger> justin: mor on Mike's 2nd proposal?
18:26:30 <dsinger> ...AOB?
18:27:04 <dsinger> ...OK, we'll try to move to consensus or CfO on these two soon,
18:27:25 <dsinger> ...then the CfO texts will be due, and the edits due, and we move to last-call status
18:27:39 <dsinger> ...with that, thank you. We adjourn.
18:27:41 <Zakim> -Chris_Pedigo
18:27:42 <Zakim> -[Apple.a]
18:27:43 <Zakim> -kulick
18:27:44 <Zakim> -[CDT]
18:27:46 <Zakim> -Peder_Magee
18:27:47 <Zakim> -[Apple]
18:27:49 <Zakim> -JackHobaugh
18:27:51 <Zakim> -moneill2
18:27:51 <Zakim> -Chapell
18:27:55 <Zakim> -Susan_Israel
18:27:56 <Zakim> -npdoty
18:27:56 <Zakim> -vinay
18:28:02 <ninja> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:28:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/02/05-dnt-minutes.html ninja
18:28:03 <Zakim> -schunter
18:28:04 <Zakim> -Carl_Cargill
18:28:09 <Zakim> -Ninja
18:28:12 <Zakim> -Wendy
18:28:13 <Zakim> -Brooks
18:28:28 <Zakim> -Chris_IAB
18:28:38 <Zakim> -eberkower
18:30:08 <Zakim> -robsherman
18:30:14 <Zakim> -Jeff
18:33:36 <Zakim> -MECallahan
18:33:37 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
18:33:37 <Zakim> Attendees were schunter, Ninja, MECallahan, eberkower, dsinger, Wendy, Jeff, moneill2, Chris_IAB, JackHobaugh, kulick, justin, npdoty, Carl_Cargill, hefferjr, Chris_Pedigo,
18:33:37 <Zakim> ... sidstamm, vinay, Bryan_Sullivan, Peder_Magee, +1.202.370.aaaa, robsherman, Brooks, [FTC], WaltMichel, Fielding, dwainberg, Susan_Israel, [Apple], hober, adrianba, Chapell
18:37:07 <robsherman> robsherman has joined #dnt
19:05:54 <robsherman> robsherman has joined #dnt
19:11:01 <adrianba_> adrianba_ has joined #dnt