IRC log of dnt on 2016-10-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:02:49 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
16:02:49 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/19-dnt-irc
16:02:51 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
16:02:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #dnt
16:02:53 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TRACK
16:02:53 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
16:02:54 [trackbot]
Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
16:02:54 [trackbot]
Date: 19 October 2016
16:03:12 [npdoty]
present+ npdoty
16:03:16 [npdoty]
present+ mikeoneill
16:03:23 [mikeoneill]
present+
16:03:28 [ChrisPedigoDCN]
ChrisPedigoDCN has joined #dnt
16:03:53 [npdoty]
present+ ChrisPedigoDCN
16:04:06 [npdoty]
present+ schunter
16:04:18 [schunter]
Topics:
16:04:24 [schunter]
- New Charter - Feedback
16:04:38 [schunter]
- What to best do with the TCS (Option 1, Option 2, ...()
16:04:44 [npdoty]
present+ aleecia
16:05:56 [npdoty]
scribenick: npdoty
16:06:10 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is here?
16:06:10 [Zakim]
Present: npdoty, mikeoneill, ChrisPedigoDCN, schunter, aleecia
16:06:12 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ChrisPedigoDCN, Zakim, RRSAgent, schunter, npdoty, mikeoneill, jeff, mkwst, adrianba, hadleybeeman, pde, walter, wseltzer, trackbot
16:06:28 [jeff]
present+ jeff
16:06:28 [npdoty]
present+ simonkrauss
16:06:29 [schunter]
Simon Kraus
16:06:32 [schunter]
Chris Pedigo
16:06:44 [schunter]
Jeff
16:07:29 [schunter]
Cable Labs
16:07:38 [npdoty]
Simon: affiliated with CableLabs, attended previous meetings, wanted to check in
16:08:04 [npdoty]
Topic: Summary
16:08:15 [vincent_]
vincent_ has joined #dnt
16:08:24 [npdoty]
schunter: initially, many participants. group standardized one protocol for user agents to express and sites to respond with how they honor
16:08:32 [wseltzer]
regrets+ wseltzer
16:08:46 [npdoty]
... another piece Tracking Compliance defines behavior to respond to a Do Not Track signal
16:08:52 [npdoty]
regrets+ dsinger
16:09:18 [npdoty]
... process reached agreement, but people not sure if it's too strict or too lax
16:10:05 [npdoty]
... group activated on the prospect of closing the group, in particular in response to new European regulation
16:10:16 [npdoty]
... breakout at TPAC, with implementation interest
16:10:51 [npdoty]
... that's the current status: trying it out, or if it doesn't work, letting go
16:10:56 [npdoty]
Topic: Charter
16:11:04 [npdoty]
schunter: drafted a charter and sent it around
16:11:17 [npdoty]
... extend a charter for an implementation study, may or may not do spec updates
16:11:26 [npdoty]
... if we see enough value, then we publish a Recommendation
16:11:37 [npdoty]
... if unsurmountable problems, we cease work
16:11:48 [npdoty]
... focus is on the technical piece, over the compliance piece
16:12:50 [npdoty]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2016Oct/att-0025/03-part
16:13:02 [npdoty]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2016Oct/0025.html
16:13:35 [vincent_]
thanks npdoty
16:14:47 [npdoty]
q+ on "out of scope"
16:15:25 [npdoty]
schunter: going through charter differences (see link)
16:16:08 [npdoty]
mikeoneill: responded on list, important to note what the changes are
16:16:26 [npdoty]
... expand on the details of the user control aspects and transparency of tracking status resource
16:16:35 [npdoty]
schunter: like a feature overview?
16:16:56 [npdoty]
q?
16:17:15 [npdoty]
aleecia: I think this is fine. are success criteria and exit criteria the same thing?
16:17:34 [npdoty]
... don't want to hit exit criteria but not move forward
16:18:10 [npdoty]
schunter: I think it's our decision not to move forward even if we have met requirements, but want to be more confident about utility
16:19:54 [npdoty]
jeff: interpret "success criteria" informally, not specific to Recommendation status
16:20:14 [npdoty]
... to reach Rec status, have to go through other steps of the Process document, that defines what it means to get to Rec
16:20:47 [npdoty]
... maybe these are a little redundant
16:21:01 [npdoty]
aleecia: frustration that we *could* push it out, but we're not going to
16:21:25 [npdoty]
... so would like clarity about what it takes to get it out into the world
16:22:45 [npdoty]
schunter: would be helpful if it could be more conclusive
16:23:36 [npdoty]
... can discuss levels of success now to avoid confusion later
16:24:38 [npdoty]
aleecia: concern that not publishing final Recommendation inhibits activity
16:24:42 [jeff]
q+ to discuss the importance of having a bootstrapping strategy
16:25:39 [npdoty]
aleecia: much more potential after it gets published [as a Recommendation] than before
16:25:59 [npdoty]
... for example, press or implementer interest
16:26:41 [npdoty]
mikeoneill: would matter whether feedback from regulators say it's sufficient for GDPR satisfaction
16:27:01 [npdoty]
vincent_: could try to get informal feedback now
16:27:56 [npdoty]
schunter: if adoption is likely after Recommendation, then success is to: publish a stable Recommendation informed by EU regulation
16:28:31 [schunter]
Production of stable Recommendation-track specifications that is extended by the minimally required definitions of TCS and is informed by studies of the emerging EU privacy regulations. We studied the emerging EU privacy regulations and documented benefits of the TPE to comply with the emerging EU privacy regulations.
16:28:40 [schunter]
We studied the emerging EU privacy regulations and documented benefits of the TPE to comply with the emerging EU privacy regulations.
16:28:49 [schunter]
Production of stable Recommendation-track specifications that is extended by the minimally required definitions of TCS and is informed by studies of the emerging EU privacy regulations.
16:29:43 [schunter]
Revised version:
16:29:45 [schunter]
Production of stable Recommendation-track specifications that is extended by the minimally required definitions of TCS.
16:30:06 [npdoty]
jeff: fine to change the success criteria. if we put our heads down and focus narrowly on Rec, without in parallel working with regulators and implementers, I'd be skeptical of the outcome
16:30:22 [npdoty]
... should be parallel bootstrapping of this work with working with regulators and implementers
16:30:26 [schunter]
The revised TPE will be informed by informed by studies of the emerging EU privacy regulations and other compliance documents.
16:30:36 [schunter]
Bonus: We can demonstrate that TPE can simplify compliance – ideally endorsed by some EU regulators.
16:30:48 [jeff]
ack je
16:30:48 [Zakim]
jeff, you wanted to discuss the importance of having a bootstrapping strategy
16:30:59 [npdoty]
... which group (this Working Group, a Community Group, something else) is going to step up to work with regulators?
16:31:30 [schunter]
Revised success criteria
16:31:30 [schunter]
1. Production of stable Recommendation-track specifications that is extended by the minimally required definitions of TCS.
16:31:30 [schunter]
2. The revised TPE will be informed by informed by studies of the emerging EU privacy regulations and other compliance documents.
16:31:31 [schunter]
3. Bonus: We can demonstrate that TPE can simplify compliance – ideally endorsed by some EU regulators.
16:31:37 [npdoty]
vincent_: can provide feedback based on how GDPR would be implemented in 2018, will work with Rob
16:32:02 [npdoty]
... Article 29 already provided some feedback on TPE. since we have GDPR text now, should be easier to see how it complies or not
16:32:11 [npdoty]
... regulators are certainly paying attention
16:33:13 [npdoty]
jeff: anything you can do to encourage that activity (workshops, etc.) would be useful
16:33:25 [npdoty]
vincent_: Do Not Track is being discussed as one solution to being compliant
16:33:38 [npdoty]
q?
16:34:01 [npdoty]
jeff: charter has a list of dependencies and liaisons, including vague reference to working with external groups like regulators
16:34:26 [npdoty]
... identifying actual groups by name that are doing specific work related to DNT would strengthen the charter
16:34:33 [npdoty]
schunter: +1
16:34:43 [npdoty]
... Article 29, or other bodies?
16:35:15 [npdoty]
present+ vincent
16:35:39 [schunter]
q?
16:35:51 [jeff]
ack npd
16:35:51 [Zakim]
npdoty, you wanted to comment on "out of scope"
16:36:37 [jeff]
Nick: Why is TCS out of scope?
16:36:46 [jeff]
... don't we want to review feedback to TCS?
16:37:05 [jeff]
@@: I agree
16:37:15 [jeff]
... we don't want the press to see that we dropped TCS
16:37:19 [npdoty]
npdoty: expect activity to focus on TPE, but don't want TCS out of scope when we are currently collecting feedback
16:37:25 [jeff]
Aleecia: +1 to collecting feedback
16:37:30 [jeff]
... ds agrees
16:37:36 [mikeoneill]
+1
16:37:48 [npdoty]
ChrisPedigoDCN: I agree, we are looking at implementation, and wouldn't want to indicate lack of further work on that topic
16:38:24 [npdoty]
schunter: note that we are open to different compliance regimes
16:39:04 [npdoty]
... to the extent that we define terms (like "tracking"), does that limit compliance?
16:39:51 [npdoty]
schunter: I'll update the paragraph to say that we keep TCS and collect feedback, but not adding it as part of success criteria
16:40:32 [jeff]
q+
16:40:42 [npdoty]
schunter: regarding TCS future, should we change to a Note? or, per dsinger, if there is sufficient interest, we can publish as a Rec
16:40:53 [npdoty]
q+
16:41:05 [npdoty]
ack jeff
16:41:32 [npdoty]
jeff: relatively short charter period, through August 2017. my guess is that it may be too early to make a decision
16:42:22 [npdoty]
... gather implementation feedback during the year, but may not decide on its future until then
16:42:44 [npdoty]
schunter: decouple, wait and see on implementation from Compliance
16:43:54 [npdoty]
schunter: what's the policy if a group ends? automatically becomes Notes?
16:44:14 [npdoty]
jeff: can remain as a Candidate Recommendation, or can choose to publish as a Note
16:44:58 [jeff]
Nick: We don't need to be that specific about TCS
16:45:10 [jeff]
... whether in the Charter to say it will be a Note.
16:45:20 [jeff]
... the group can always decide that in the middle of the charter period.
16:45:52 [npdoty]
schunter: consensus is for TCS in maintenance mode, no decision on ultimate status
16:46:25 [npdoty]
jeff: nothing negative to say that we're going to gather implementation feedback, that's just the next logical step at this point
16:46:31 [npdoty]
[npdoty: +1]
16:46:58 [npdoty]
schunter: maintain TCS, but not list it in the success criteria
16:47:16 [npdoty]
... have some ideas about how to write it into the charter
16:47:36 [npdoty]
ChrisPedigoDCN: not about making it a Note, but about collecting feedback
16:47:53 [npdoty]
schunter: right, remains Candidate Rec while we gather information
16:48:29 [npdoty]
schunter: send an update soon, if we're fine, then go through w3c process for charter
16:48:36 [npdoty]
timeline?
16:48:44 [npdoty]
schunter: re-charter for 1 year, end of 2018
16:48:58 [npdoty]
s/end of 2018/end of 2017/
16:49:01 [schunter]
q?
16:49:12 [jeff]
ack n
16:49:17 [npdoty]
anything else?
16:49:27 [npdoty]
thanks for joining. next call in 2 weeks
16:49:47 [npdoty]
trackbot, end meeting
16:49:47 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:49:47 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been npdoty, mikeoneill, ChrisPedigoDCN, schunter, aleecia, jeff, simonkrauss, vincent
16:49:47 [jeff]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:49:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/19-dnt-minutes.html jeff
16:49:55 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:49:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/19-dnt-minutes.html trackbot
16:49:56 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:49:56 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items