14:11:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #EPC
14:11:52 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/10/28-EPC-irc
14:11:55 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:11:56 <Zakim> Meeting: European Publishers Council – Future of the Open Web
14:13:50 <bkardell> bkardell has joined #EPC
14:57:10 <gendler> gendler has joined #EPC
15:01:07 <kris_chapman_> kris_chapman_ has joined #EPC
15:01:45 <asoltani> asoltani has joined #EPC
15:01:49 <robin> robin has joined #EPC
15:01:49 <gendler> present+
15:01:50 <weiler> weiler has joined #EPC
15:01:52 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #epc
15:02:03 <kris_chapman_> present+
15:02:10 <jrosewell> jrosewell has joined #EPC
15:02:16 <jra> jra has joined #EPC
15:02:19 <jrosewell> present+
15:02:32 <Bleparmentier> Bleparmentier has joined #EPC
15:02:33 <cwilso> cwilso has joined #EPC
15:02:35 <Bleparmentier> present+
15:02:38 <cwilso> present+
15:02:41 <JacquesHansROCHE> JacquesHansROCHE has joined #EPC
15:02:48 <dmarti> dmarti has joined #EPC
15:02:56 <igarashi__> igarashi__ has joined #EPC
15:03:06 <weiler> present+
15:03:13 <igarashi__> present+
15:03:16 <AramZS> AramZS has joined #EPC
15:03:20 <AramZS> present+
15:03:21 <takashi> takashi has joined #EPC
15:03:43 <robin> Present+
15:03:49 <wseltzer> wseltzer has joined #EPC
15:04:12 <Bert> Bert has joined #EPC
15:04:13 <kleber> kleber has joined #EPC
15:04:18 <Bert> present+
15:04:27 <wseltzer> present+
15:04:38 <jeff> jeff has joined #epc
15:04:44 <jeff> present+
15:05:31 <wseltzer> [Presentation: Phil Eligio]
15:05:41 <joshua_koran_> joshua_koran_ has joined #epc
15:05:44 <ivan> present+
15:05:52 <wseltzer> -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2020Oct/att-0008/01-part Phil's slides
15:06:59 <weiler> [he's presenting using different slides, though]
15:07:27 <QAdex> QAdex has joined #EPC
15:08:27 <wseltzer> https://www.epceurope.eu/
15:08:49 <wseltzer> https://www.epceurope.eu/post/epc-position-paper-on-the-future-of-audience-addressability-identity-and-privacy-in-a-digital-world
15:14:45 <jeff> q+ to get Phillip's view on how representation could be improved.
15:15:43 <AramZS> q+ to ask why an identifier is the only solution to these problems?
15:15:46 <jrosewell> q+ neutral entity - admin and/or operate?
15:15:54 <weiler> q+
15:16:09 <kleber> q- neutral, entity, -, admin, and/or, operate?
15:16:16 <jrosewell> q+
15:16:26 <Ralph> Ralph has joined #EPC
15:16:53 <AramZS> (the format is q plus sign `to` and then string I think jrosewell)
15:17:44 <ivan> q?
15:17:52 <ivan> ack jeff
15:17:52 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to get Phillip's view on how representation could be improved.
15:17:58 <naxf> naxf has joined #EPC
15:18:10 <Karen> Karen has joined #epc
15:18:15 <Karen> present+
15:19:13 <kazho> kazho has joined #epc
15:19:17 <kris_chapman_> q+
15:20:23 <robin> q+ to point out that The Times's offer of training in W3C standards for publisher organisations still stands
15:20:50 <wseltzer> qq+
15:20:56 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #epc
15:21:45 <ivan> ack robin
15:21:45 <Zakim> robin, you wanted to point out that The Times's offer of training in W3C standards for publisher organisations still stands
15:22:15 <ivan> ack wseltzer
15:22:15 <Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to react to jeff
15:22:36 <JacquesHansROCHE> I'm here sorry
15:22:51 <wseltzer> q-
15:23:03 <weiler> ack aram
15:23:03 <Zakim> AramZS, you wanted to ask why an identifier is the only solution to these problems?
15:23:08 <pl_mrcy> pl_mrcy has joined #epc
15:23:21 <JacquesHansROCHE> I can take notes
15:23:45 <wseltzer> AramZS: Can you dig in a bit more to the conclusion you reached that a 1:1 psuedonymoous identifier is the solution
15:23:50 <weiler> aramzs++
15:23:57 <wseltzer> ... we've had the discussion and reached a different answer
15:24:10 <wseltzer> Phil: we concluded that was what drove value today
15:24:24 <robin> q+ to point out that this is not a unanimous position in the EPC
15:24:37 <wseltzer> ... know there's been some owrk to address value-drivers that aren't 1:1
15:24:47 <jeff> Jeff: In the EPC paper it encourages W3C to have greater representation in our ecosystem.  But we are an open organization with about 450 members, 1/3 in Europe; merged with IDPF.   What else can we do?
15:24:48 <wseltzer> ... no technical solution proposed in the paper
15:25:11 <wseltzer> AramZS: do you think the group of publishers here would be open to a diferent solution that reasonably satisfied the needs being met by ID?
15:25:20 <wseltzer> Phil: if it reasonably satisfies
15:25:24 <wseltzer> ... important conversation to have
15:25:30 <wseltzer> ... not at the end point of the conversation eyt
15:25:38 <jeff> Phillip: (paraphrase after the fact) Good question, Jeff.  Difficult to find technical resources.  It would probably be helpful if you can be proactive.
15:25:53 <ivan> q+ Anil
15:25:58 <ivan> ack weiler
15:26:02 <wseltzer> ... publishers interested in finding a solution that addresses these areas
15:26:04 <jeff> Robin: In terms of guiding publishers and advertisers how to get around in W3C, I'm happy to lead a workshop.
15:26:14 <wseltzer> weiler: I heard you say you're looking for a simple transparent solution
15:26:25 <wseltzer> ... and in the paper, propose psuedonymous identifier
15:26:42 <wseltzer> ... If a linkable identifier is widely used across the web, it loses its psuedonymity properties
15:26:53 <wseltzer> ... you may have to do something more complicated
15:26:57 <ivan> ack jrosewell
15:27:20 <joshua_koran_> q+ @sam "pseudonymous" by definition means that it has technical or operational means to keep the activity distinct from directly-identifiable information (i.e. offline identity)
15:27:25 <wseltzer> jrosewell: a lot of businesses will have suppliers that support them
15:27:31 <joshua_koran_> @sam "pseudonymous" by definition means that it has technical or operational means to keep the activity distinct from directly-identifiable information (i.e. offline identity)
15:27:37 <wseltzer> ... rely on technology providers
15:27:45 <ivan> q?
15:28:01 <wseltzer> ... lots of those tech companies that support publishers, generally referred to as "ad tech", are involved with W3C
15:28:23 <wseltzer> ... they are capable of representing views of publishers
15:28:26 <AramZS> q+ to the question that ad tech could represent the interests of publishers
15:28:35 <wseltzer> ... we talked about business models and solutions
15:28:45 <wseltzer> ... not just code, but also laws
15:28:45 <gendler> AramZS ++ to that question
15:29:12 <wseltzer> ... heard a presentation from Blacklight re how GDPR has impacted
15:29:20 <wseltzer> ... could be discussed in proposed Decentralization IG
15:30:05 <wseltzer> ... Spectrum of owned+operated together, and splitting operation and administration, any preference?
15:30:18 <wseltzer> Phil: the paper specified neutral
15:30:21 <weiler> q+ to ask why use a model that needs governance (v. fully self-soverign)
15:30:22 <wseltzer> ... didn't describe the governance
15:30:33 <wseltzer> ... question that can be investigated
15:30:56 <wseltzer> ... if we build for neutral entity, need to address governance
15:31:04 <ivan> ack kris_chapman_
15:31:28 <wseltzer> kris_chapman_: comment on the difficulty of knowing which groups to join, timing for participation
15:31:40 <wseltzer> ... I spend about 25% of my time working in various W3C groups
15:32:13 <wseltzer> kris_chapman_: there's a need to provide a pecking order among groups, which is the priority to be involved with
15:32:22 <ivan> ack robin
15:32:22 <Zakim> robin, you wanted to point out that this is not a unanimous position in the EPC
15:32:22 <wseltzer> ... so you don't miss important conversations
15:32:51 <wseltzer> robin: re pseudonymous identifiers, I wouldn't say EPC had a unanimous position. More nuance
15:33:14 <wseltzer> ... pseudonymous identifiers are a governance and privacy method designed for areas that are strongly governed
15:33:18 <jrosewell> q+
15:33:26 <tantek> tantek has joined #EPC
15:33:27 <wseltzer> ... e.g. clinical trials with IRB, audits, bureaucracy
15:33:33 <wseltzer> ... lots involved in "doing it right"
15:33:42 <wseltzer> ... accountability
15:33:50 <wseltzer> ... requires lots of bureaucracy to do it right
15:33:57 <wseltzer> ... that would slow innovation substantially
15:34:08 <wseltzer> ... from our perspective, more value to try innovative alternatives
15:34:14 <kleber> +1 to Robin
15:34:24 <wseltzer> ... Second, the idea that any non-publisher can represent publishers is preposterous
15:34:41 <wseltzer> ... Ad tech companies are more than welcome to participate, a key part of the future of the web
15:34:49 <ivan> ack anil
15:34:57 <wseltzer> ... but they shouldn't speak as if they represent publishers
15:35:18 <wseltzer> anil: Is there a prospective business model behind the identifier you mentioned?
15:35:19 <cwilso> +1
15:35:25 <wseltzer> ... eg. relating to email marketing?
15:35:35 <wseltzer> Phil: there hasn't been specific discussion around that
15:35:44 <ivan> ack AramZS
15:35:44 <Zakim> AramZS, you wanted to the question that ad tech could represent the interests of publishers
15:35:49 <wseltzer> AramZS: reinforce what Robin said
15:36:23 <wseltzer> ... a number of studies show 70% of ad profits go to ad companies, not to publishers
15:36:31 <wseltzer> ... reports on % of ad traffic that's fraudulent
15:36:49 <wseltzer> ... not interested in disparaging ad tech
15:37:05 <mserrate> mserrate has joined #epc
15:37:11 <joshua_koran_> +1 to cleaning up fraud, but we have to also acknowledge publishers are sources of fraud independent of intermediaries
15:37:12 <wseltzer> ... but address technical problems that need to be solved re reporting and business issues
15:37:25 <wseltzer> ... Advertising technology represents some interests; web publishing represents others
15:37:43 <wseltzer> ... recognize that they're separate interests
15:37:45 <ivan> ack weiler
15:37:45 <Zakim> weiler, you wanted to ask why use a model that needs governance (v. fully self-soverign)
15:37:54 <AramZS> An assessment on some of the reporting of fraud https://mashable.com/2016/06/09/ad-fraud-organized-crime/#NEIQuQmMSsqE
15:38:10 <AramZS> Another estimation of fraud: https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/unilever-were-miles-ahead-pack-tackling-ad-fraud/1592052
15:38:13 <wseltzer> weiler: when I hear concerns about governance, wonder why we use an architecture with such requirements, rather than engineering
15:38:31 <kris_chapman_> q+
15:38:51 <wseltzer> Phil: look forward to the conversation, don't have a clear answer today
15:39:00 <wseltzer> weiler: or proposing something else that doesn't have those problems
15:39:08 <kleber> q+ to ask about specific data ownership needs of publishers — a global identifier pushes in the opposite direction of pubs keeping control of their data, audiences, etc
15:39:16 <tantek> I'm curious about the defensiveness about (not) disparaging ad tech, I mean, everyone knows about the widespread problem of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising right?
15:39:45 <ivan> ack jrosewell
15:39:49 <wseltzer> jrosewell: I'm not directly involved in ad tech, though I have customers in that field
15:40:12 <wseltzer> ... disagree, a tech company can represent its customers
15:40:27 <robin> q?
15:40:40 <gendler> q+ to ask if publishers are the customer for adtech companies or the product
15:41:09 <wseltzer> ... any industry can have its bad actors (diesel emissions, Enron), but we shouldn't all actors with the same brush
15:41:20 <wseltzer> ... the vast majority I've interacted with are trying to do the right thing
15:41:29 <wseltzer> ... no one finds fraud numbers acceptable
15:41:46 <AramZS> Some writing on why the split of profit to middlemen technologies creates real problems in the ecosystem - http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2017/01/why-ad-fraud-thrives.html
15:41:58 <wseltzer> ... Re pseudonymous identifiers and governance, EPC aren't the only body proposing. Competition and Markets Authority UK also propose
15:42:02 <weiler> q+ to rebut re: bad ideas
15:42:30 <wseltzer> ... before we assume there's a problem associated with audit and control, shouldn't we understand those solutions and compare with alternative
15:42:35 <wseltzer> q+
15:42:44 <ivan> ack kris_chapman_
15:42:54 <wseltzer> kris_chapman_: Salesforce isn't ad tech, martech.
15:43:18 <wseltzer> ... while best representatives of publishers are the publs themselves, I do try to represent the feedback I hear from our customers in publishing
15:43:20 <weiler> q-
15:44:07 <AramZS> Two pieces on the question of the concerning split in profit regarding middlemen - https://mediatel.co.uk/newsline/2016/10/04/where-did-the-money-go-guardian-buys-its-own-ad-inventory/ & https://digiday.com/careers/ad-tech-confession/
15:44:16 <wseltzer> ... re pseudonymous identifier, we tend to have engineering background and therefore try to develop engineering solutions
15:44:23 <wseltzer> ... not the only answer
15:44:34 <weiler> q+ to respond to kris
15:44:36 <wseltzer> ... we shouldn't dismiss business logic and business solutions
15:44:39 <jrosewell> Agree with Kris that we tend to seek solutions in technology and not in other areas such as policy, governance, etc.
15:44:41 <ivan> ack kleber
15:44:41 <Zakim> kleber, you wanted to ask about specific data ownership needs of publishers — a global identifier pushes in the opposite direction of pubs keeping control of their data,
15:44:44 <Zakim> ... audiences, etc
15:45:28 <wseltzer> kleber: on the subject of pseudonymous identifiers, 30 years of privacy research says there's no global cross-context identifier with the properties you're looking for
15:45:54 <wseltzer> ... without a lot of regulatory work behind enforcement
15:45:55 <joshua_koran_> +q re pseudonymous IDs
15:46:04 <wseltzer> ... what are the specific data ownership needs of publishers
15:46:10 <wseltzer> ... in the regime you're talking about
15:46:28 <wseltzer> ... global ID we're talking about seems to cut against some of the needs
15:46:47 <michaelchampion> michaelchampion has joined #EPC
15:47:01 <wseltzer> ... I'm author of privacy sandbox proposals, e.g. letting publishers advertise on their site without contributing to the building of audiences that can be used off-site
15:47:04 <ivan> ack gendler
15:47:04 <Zakim> gendler, you wanted to ask if publishers are the customer for adtech companies or the product
15:47:18 <wseltzer> ... pseudonymous ID doesn't offer protection against that threat
15:47:50 <wseltzer> gendler: NYT, to jrosewell, I'd disagree that publishers are the customers of ad tech
15:47:51 <jrosewell> q+
15:47:58 <wseltzer> ... advertisers are the customer, publishers are the product
15:48:10 <wseltzer> ... so harder for them to represent publishers' interests
15:48:27 <wseltzer> ... re painting all with the same brush, overall ecosystem has issues
15:48:40 <ivan> ack wseltzer
15:48:43 <wseltzer> ... links Aram is putting in the chat
15:50:28 <wseltzer> wseltzer: @@
15:50:30 <ivan> ack weiler
15:50:30 <Zakim> weiler, you wanted to respond to kris
15:50:51 <wseltzer> weiler: re preference for engineering solutions
15:50:59 <robin> q+ to point out that engineering, governance, policy aren't either/or
15:51:06 <wseltzer> ... in security and privacy, at least some of our adversaries don't play by the rules
15:51:10 <pe> pe has joined #epc
15:51:16 <wseltzer> ... sometimes it's state actors or organized crime
15:51:24 <wseltzer> ... seeking to subvert user interests
15:51:32 <wseltzer> ... e.g. state  actors blocking TLS 1.3
15:51:50 <ivan> ack joshua_koran_
15:51:50 <Zakim> joshua_koran_, you wanted to discuss pseudonymous IDs
15:51:51 <wseltzer> ... that's when I don't think we can rely on policy solutions
15:52:04 <AramZS> q+ to the question of mechanical enforcement and the need for it
15:52:08 <wseltzer> joshua_koran_: Zeta Global, martech
15:52:27 <wseltzer> ... agree with wseltzer start with business cases, then evaluate the technology that would solve them
15:52:37 <wseltzer> ... we tend not to look at problems that can
15:52:45 <wseltzer> ... 't be solved by technology
15:53:02 <wseltzer> ... agree we want to clean up fraud.
15:53:07 <ivan> ack jrosewell
15:53:15 <wseltzer> ... much of that driven by publishers, and advertisers deploy anti-fraud tech
15:54:10 <wseltzer> jrosewell: let's not label countries as bad actors
15:54:17 <wseltzer> ... W3C shouldn't
15:54:59 <AramZS> Note: other ad tech firms than SSPs work directly with publishers.
15:54:59 <wseltzer> jrosewell: some ad tech companies, SSPs, work with publishers; others, DSPs, work with advertisers
15:55:09 <wseltzer> ... I should have referred specifically to sell-side
15:55:16 <ivan> ack robin
15:55:16 <Zakim> robin, you wanted to point out that engineering, governance, policy aren't either/or
15:55:42 <wseltzer> robin: re not just focusing on engineering, it's not either or
15:55:52 <kris_chapman_> q+
15:55:56 <wseltzer> ... look at engineering and policy solutions, a big toolbox
15:56:07 <wseltzer> ... engineered solutions can act as forcing functions
15:56:42 <wseltzer> ... value in doing more work to bridge engineering and policy solutions
15:57:00 <wseltzer> ... e.g. GPC noted limits in pure-tech, and looked to bridge to policy
15:57:47 <wseltzer> ... I'd say there's 50 years experience looking at pseudonymous identifiers, from paper filing times, and still they don't work
15:57:51 <ivan> ack AramZS
15:57:51 <Zakim> AramZS, you wanted to the question of mechanical enforcement and the need for it
15:58:07 <wseltzer> AramZS: adtech engineering director, Washington Post
15:58:16 <wseltzer> ... +1 Robin
15:58:24 <wseltzer> ... publishers work with lots of systems besides SSPs
15:58:58 <kleber> q?
15:58:59 <wseltzer> ... there is fraud that occurs with creation of fake users, fake publishers, and larger problem around incentives for propaganda and fake news
15:59:18 <wseltzer> ... separate needs so we can understand incentives and transpaerency
15:59:40 <wseltzer> ... one of those incentives is the need to monetize on individual users, which creates the demand for fake users
15:59:44 <robin> I would further note that legitimate publishers are also harmed by fraudulent publishers since we compete for the same money
15:59:45 <ivan> ack kris_chapman_
15:59:51 <jeff> [Tantek, in terms of your point "I'm curious about the defensiveness about (not) disparaging ad tech" within W3C we should never be disparaging an entire industry.]
16:00:04 <atai1> atai1 has joined #epc
16:00:13 <wseltzer> kris_chapman_: I have an engineering background too
16:00:24 <wseltzer> ... support looking beyond engineering for solutions
16:00:30 <wseltzer> ... and beyond where engineering is today
16:00:31 <weiler> [jeff: I disagree.]
16:00:37 <wseltzer> Ivan: thank you all!
16:00:48 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
16:00:48 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been gendler, kris_chapman_, jrosewell, Bleparmentier, cwilso, weiler, igarashi__, AramZS, robin, Bert, wseltzer, jeff, ivan, Karen
16:00:51 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
16:00:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/10/28-EPC-minutes.html Zakim
16:00:53 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:00:57 <Zakim> Zakim has left #EPC
16:00:59 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:00:59 <RRSAgent> I see no action items