* Agenda-curation, introductions

Christine_Desrosiers: independent consultant

Ryan_Arnold: P&G, data scientist

* TURTLEDOVE and SPARROW, discourse thread

https://discourse.wicg.io/t/advertising-to-interest-groups-without-tracking/4565

kleber: this group has been talking about how to target advertising without tracking people across sites
... proposal I wrote in January, TURTLEDOVE
... and Criteo proposal for SPARROW
... 34 issues raised on TURTLEDOVE explainer
... about interest groups, reporting
... The idea-space to which TD propospal is one possible answer
... and SPARROW is another
... how to advertise to interest groups in a way that doesn't leak info to advertiser
... is migrating to WICG

https://github.com/wicg

kleber: what migration means
... it's a place where many browser vendors are active
... and we want to get to proposal that's implemented across many browsers
... conversation on discourse.wicg.io, which is the place for showing support for a WICG incubation
... we'll be migrating the repo over there

<jrosewell> Is this the correct URL? https://discourse.wicg.io/t/advertising-to-interest-groups-without-tracking/4565

kleber: to wicg repo
... nothing will change the Web Advertising group's ability to comment on the proposal
... or make suggestions, changes

jrosewell, yes

jrosewell: can I confirm that this group is not limited to advertising that doesn't track cross-site?

kleber: my proposal is one that doesn't use cross-site tracking
... there might be other takes, and other proposals

jrosewell: where we already know there are issues or tussles, how should we go about resolving them
... as a relative newbie to W3C, how should we as smaller members follow, contribute?
... requested delay in the incubation to recognize, sort out

yoav: as WICG co-chair
... we invite contributors to incubations to present to relevant interested groups
... to gather feedback, invite people to work in discourse threads and WICG repos
... ensuring relevant input
... invite kleber and others to do those updates

jrosewell: where decisions might impact stakeholders
... in this group
... how do we ensure that's captured?

yoav: Champions of the proposals can gather feedback
... and those interested in the proposals can provide feedback
... maybe you can clarify?

qq+ re W3C processes

jrosewell: significant business impacts possible
... you're saying we have to follow multiple activities

yoav: WICG is a community group, with multiple repos

<Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to react to jrosewell to discuss W3C processes

wseltzer: @@ W3C process

eriktaubeneck: my understanding is that 3d party cookies are being deprecated, as browsers have announced
... unrelated to Turtledove
... so we should be pushing that thorugh the proces so it's ready

Rotem: question about the goals and outcomes here

<jrosewell> yes

Rotem: should we have some alignment?

blassey: in PING, we assign a member of the group to follow a spec as it's progressing
... incubation is an early stage, but this group could do that
... that member could follow proposal, raise issues both on the proposal and to this group
... also note that WICG is not a weekly call, but most of the discussion happens on github
... no regular calls

lukwlodarczyk: questions regarding migration process
... should we keep raising issues on current repos? or wait for migration?

kleber: you're welcome to keep submitting issues
... the repo will migrate with its existing issues
... and links should still work

lukwlodarczyk: and pull requests

kleber: yes
... we'll have to pay attention to both TURTLEDOVE and SPARROW as proposals are made against each

lukwlodarczyk: what are the criteria for a successful pull request

<Chapell> +present

yoav: editors decide what pull requests they want to merge
... from an IPR perspective, you need to join WICG to sign the CLA (Contributor License Agreement)

arnaud_blanchard: we're happy to push SPARROW further
... we need to know that what we're proposing resonates with what's needed

<btsavage> Shall we close the queue for this topic?

arnaud_blanchard: re timing, is it connected to deprecation of third party cookies?

blassey: yes and no
... e.g. Safari has already limited third-party cookies
... browser implementers control their own policies on tracking and tracking prevention

kleber: as we know browsers have or are deprecating third-party cookies, that puts some time-pressure on proposals like TURTLEDOVE

<imeyers> I'm not going to try to jump into the queue, but this reads as a precondition to me: "After initial dialogue with the web community, we are confident that with continued iteration and feedback, privacy-preserving and open-standard mechanisms like the Privacy Sandbox can sustain a healthy, ad-supported web in a way that will render third-party cookies obsolete. Once these approaches have addressed the needs of users, publishers, and

<imeyers> advertisers, and we have developed the tools to mitigate workarounds, we plan to phase out support for third-party cookies in Chrome."

<imeyers> (https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-path-towards.html)

* Success criteria and questionnaire

jrosewell: we split the document in two: commentary in the success criteria doc
... concludes by considering 6 factors
... in a second document, use a Q&A format

https://github.com/w3c/web-advertising/blob/success-criteria/interoperability-choice-accessibility-accountability-questionairre.md

jrosewell: there's lots of information to follow
... is there any way to reduce that
... if one of the approaches doesn't work in practice, doesn't make sense to continue with them

AramZS: I like the idea of the document
... good to have an agreed-upon filter for what we want to be working on
... some issues with the text of the document
... working on a PR
... concern with the way it joins the issues of publishers and advertising technology
... also some concern with political statements
... would like to see expanded split to document the issues of publishers independently from technology
... what do you see joining them with supply chain beyond economic dependency?

<arnaud_blanchard> Marshall: I'm the PM from Sandbox here at Chrome. We know these are uncertain and challenging times.

<arnaud_blanchard> ... We take our responsibility to the Web community seriously.

<arnaud_blanchard> ... We think the timing discussion may be premature. We did this to engage the community.

<arnaud_blanchard> ... We're committed to phasing out 3rd party cookies once these use cases are met.

<arnaud_blanchard> ... We're monitoring the situation and will adjust as the situation warrants.

jrosewell: choices of technology are choices of publishers, advertisers
... they should have multiple choices

<arnaud_blanchard> this is an extract from the minutes of 3/26/20 IWA call

AramZS: thinking these should be more clearly delineated in the document

<arnaud_blanchard> Marshall seems to indicate that there is a link between 3rd party cookie deprecation and privacy sandbox success in meeting some use cases

<arnaud_blanchard> does it still hold ?

wseltzer: voluntary consensus standards; we don't have a way to stop work, so much as to make arguments that others will listen to
... @@

yoav: self-review seems out of scope for a BG
... other horizontal reviews are chartered as Interest Groups or TAG

<lukwlodarczyk> +Q

yoav: wide reviews are typically done at the end
... at the beginning, best way to contribute is providing feedback, making sure they address use cases
... raise issues on the incubation, pull requests
... that's the best way for this BG to have impact
... not by an enforceable review

<joshua_koran> No one is arguing against the consensus model of the W3C. To evaluate whether we are Improving Web Advertising, we need to define how we are measuring the impact to various stakeholders to see that we are indeed “improving” web advertising. The Success Criteria document is designed to aid in that effort. If we have alternate proposals to replace third-party cookies, by what criteria would other members suggest we evaluate their m[CUT]

krischapman: my sense is BGs are advisory, a group of related experts
... CGs are building specs
... when you advise, but advice isn't being listened to, don't be so polite
... say you're rejecting the advice, if that's the case

<krischapman> <grin> sounds good, Wendell :)

wbaker: Verizon Media is here because we're interested to learn about the new privacy-first web
... we don't have browser technology
... we needed to learn what the browser stacks are doing
... and it's been wonderful to hear chrome and safari folks here
... I see the major output as the table FB and others assembled

https://github.com/w3c/web-advertising/blob/master/support_for_advertising_use_cases.md

wbaker: the web is ultimately what a browser will interact with
... so don't think a stakeholder perspective document coming from this group is useful, that's more an academic exercise
... we're here to learn, figure out how to make a media business on top of the web software stack

<Chapell> Sorry folks, I'm having connectivity issues. So will post here rather than try to queue

<Chapell> This has been an interesting and helpful discussion and I thank the Chrome team for engaging with the rest of the marketplace.

jrosewell: if this BG isn't the right place for this document, is there a different place we should go?
... re timing, if there are issues we can raise early, then best to do that
... offer feedback

lukwlodarczyk: are we asking ourselves the right questions?
... what particular use case needs to operate without third party cookies?
... that impacts success criteriall

blassey: this Success Criteria doc seems to have two goals
... one, point of view doc for adtech industry
... if so, then not necessarily the place for browsers to give input
... though there are places I'd disagree
... second, a review doc

<kleber> I think this doc is this group's answer to Lukasz's question about "what particular use case needs to operate without third party cookies?": https://github.com/w3c/web-advertising/blob/master/support_for_advertising_use_cases.md

blassey: and if so, then it should have a consensus around it
... as other review docs do
... third, address how it fits with priority of constituencies

<joshua_koran> Given mic issues, I’ll also post in comments. Per Wendall’s comment, browser companies may not respect the interests of the various stakeholders outlined in the Success Criteria. However, per Kris’ comment it would be beneficial for them to state this more clearly. Per Lukasz’s comment, if the Success Criteria is incomplete, let’s document which use cases the browser companies will or will not support as we look to improve [CUT]

https://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies

<joshua_koran> the group would greatly benefit from browser enhancing the document to better capture the interests of browsers. My question is whether the browsers are willing to improve the doc to help us reach common ground?

blassey: regarding review, comes at the end, but it's welcome for people to raise issues early
... but not as a slow-down or blocking concern at incubation stage

btsavage: I resonate with what wbaker said
... this group is useful as preparation for changes to the web platform
... as a contrast to iOS changes which were announced without advance notice

<dialtone> +1 on ben

<bmilekic> +1

<dialtone> I wish this group spent more time discussing specs

btsavage: appreciate that we can share needs, use cases
... didn't find the procedural discussion useful

AramZS: agree with btsavage

<apascoe> +1 to ben

<lbasdevant> +1 to ben

<dialtone> we've spent the last many months discussing this success criteria document and for something that isn't clearly a part of this group and isn't quite finalized, that's a lot of time taken over without making progress on the specs

<joshua_koran> The document presents that specific stakeholders interests need to be taken into account and have been ignored in outlining benefits of various proposals to date.

AramZS: how do we offer useful feedback
... don't think this group should spend its time debating this document.
... a number of people reached out to me with alarm at this document.

<dialtone> the way to progress the interests is by discussing the specs and the usecases not covered in the specs, spending close to 80% of the time of these meetings to discuss that document will not help. Browsers will do what they want anyway

AramZS: if we want to maintain it in our repo, need to be more conservative with it.
... seems to put adtech above users, and to lump publishers with adtech.
... need to focus on what's being developed.

<krischapman> +1

<kleber> (Note to folks who were wondering: this page lists names and affiliations of people in this group: https://www.w3.org/community/web-adv/participants)

AramZS: not appropriate for us to be trying to stop the phase-out of cross-site tracking

wseltzer: I'll take that feedback as chair, and invite side conversations

[adjourned]

This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/its/it's/
Succeeded: s/kleber/blassey/
Succeeded: s/polity/polite/
Succeeded: s/criteria/criterial/
Succeeded: s/the answer/this group's answer/
Present: wseltzer krischapman dialtone joshua_koran lbasdevant jrosewell br-rtbhouse sharkey eriktaubeneck robarm_ arnoldrw iant imeyers wbaker kleber ErikAnderson hober mjv joelmeyer bmilekic jurjendewal arnaud_blanchard pl_mrcy blassey Rotem marguin seanbedford bleparmentier btsavage AramZS dkwestbr shigeki
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: wseltzer
Inferring Scribes: wseltzer

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)