Christine_Desrosiers: independent consultant
Ryan_Arnold: P&G, data scientist
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
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)
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
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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]