IRC log of dnt on 2012-03-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:49:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:49:04 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:49:15 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #dnt
15:49:26 [aleecia]
Zakim, this will be dnt
15:49:26 [Zakim]
ok, aleecia; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
15:49:36 [aleecia]
chair: schunter
15:49:48 [aleecia]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:50:17 [mischat]
mischat has joined #dnt
15:51:23 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:51:30 [tl]
tl has joined #dnt
15:51:30 [Zakim]
15:51:54 [Zakim]
15:52:03 [tl]
Zakim, Mozilla has tl
15:52:03 [Zakim]
+tl; got it
15:52:33 [tl]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:52:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P8, [Mozilla]
15:52:34 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has tl
15:52:55 [tl]
Zakim, ??P8 is schunter
15:52:55 [Zakim]
+schunter; got it
15:53:12 [Zakim]
15:53:31 [aleecia]
agenda+ Selection of scribe
15:53:40 [dsriedel]
dsriedel has joined #dnt
15:53:53 [aleecia]
agenda+ Any comments on minutes:
15:54:14 [aleecia]
agenda+ Review of overdue action items:
15:54:35 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
15:54:37 [aleecia]
agenda+ ISSUE-111: Signaling status and existence of site-specific exceptions
15:54:39 [Zakim]
+ +2191374aaaa
15:54:51 [aleecia]
agenda+ Responses: Header & URI
15:54:58 [dsriedel]
zakim, aaaa is dsriedel
15:54:58 [Zakim]
+dsriedel; got it
15:55:02 [dsriedel]
zakim, mute me
15:55:02 [Zakim]
dsriedel should now be muted
15:55:07 [aleecia]
agenda+ Creation of new actions for TPE
15:55:19 [aleecia]
agenda+ Announce next meeting & adjourn
15:55:45 [aleecia]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:55:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see schunter (muted), [Mozilla], aleecia, dsriedel (muted)
15:55:47 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has tl
15:56:16 [Zakim]
15:57:17 [dsinger_]
dsinger_ has joined #dnt
15:57:32 [tl]
aleecia, Do you know how Zakim does and doesn't remember which numbers belong to which people? Presumably, that's something I should ask Nick?
15:57:58 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.520.aabb
15:58:11 [jmayer]
jmayer has joined #dnt
15:58:13 [Zakim]
15:58:13 [KevinT]
KevinT has joined #dnt
15:58:13 [dsinger_]
dsinger_ has joined #dnt
15:58:20 [dsinger_]
zakim, mute dsinger
15:58:20 [Zakim]
dsinger should now be muted
15:58:22 [aleecia]
Nick is your official person to ask. Thomas knows details fairly well. David Singer has some clue here too.
15:58:34 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.654.aacc
15:58:38 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.684.aadd
15:58:47 [jmayer]
Zakim, aadd is jmayer
15:58:47 [Zakim]
+jmayer; got it
15:58:49 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
15:58:51 [schunter]
zakim, mute me
15:58:51 [Zakim]
schunter should now be muted
15:59:05 [jchester2]
jchester2 has joined #dnt
15:59:20 [ifette]
ifette has joined #dnt
16:00:04 [Zakim]
16:00:11 [eberkower]
eberkower has joined #dnt
16:00:11 [sidstamm]
Zakim, Mozilla.a has sidstamm
16:00:11 [Zakim]
+sidstamm; got it
16:00:20 [vinay]
vinay has joined #dnt
16:00:25 [tl]
aleecia, If only there were more of that to go around... =[
16:00:28 [aleecia]
David - Tom was asking about the Zakim db on phone numbers and how that works. As I recall you have some clue here?
16:00:31 [ninjamarnau]
ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
16:00:41 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.253.aaee
16:00:45 [schunter]
Zakim, unmute me
16:00:45 [Zakim]
schunter should no longer be muted
16:00:45 [ifette]
zakim, aaee is ifette
16:00:46 [Zakim]
+ifette; got it
16:00:54 [efelten]
efelten has joined #dnt
16:01:02 [Zakim]
+ +1.917.934.aaff
16:01:15 [aleecia]
good morning, Ian
16:01:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.510.501.aagg
16:01:20 [dsinger_]
zakim, who is here?
16:01:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see schunter, [Mozilla], aleecia, dsriedel (muted), rvaneijk, +1.415.520.aabb, dsinger (muted), +1.646.654.aacc, jmayer, [Mozilla.a], ifette, +1.917.934.aaff,
16:01:23 [ifette]
gm, aleecia!
16:01:24 [Zakim]
... +1.510.501.aagg
16:01:24 [Zakim]
[Mozilla.a] has sidstamm
16:01:24 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has tl
16:01:24 [Zakim]
On IRC I see efelten, ninjamarnau, vinay, eberkower, ifette, jchester2, sidstamm, dsinger_, KevinT, jmayer, schunter, dsriedel, tl, Zakim, RRSAgent, rvaneijk, aleecia, tlr,
16:01:27 [Zakim]
... trackbot, hober, wseltzer, pde
16:01:31 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.326.aahh
16:01:39 [Zakim]
16:01:45 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #DNT
16:01:45 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.658.aaii
16:01:50 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
16:01:58 [Zakim]
+ +49.431.98.aajj
16:01:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.326.aakk
16:02:03 [pedermagee]
pedermagee has joined #dnt
16:02:08 [efelten]
Zakim, aakk is me
16:02:11 [Zakim]
+efelten; got it
16:02:20 [ninjamarnau]
Zakim, aajj is ninjamarnau
16:02:20 [Zakim]
+ninjamarnau; got it
16:02:24 [aleecia]
schunter: congrats on shipping, now we go back to open issues.
16:02:39 [aleecia]
… topic today is TPE, want to discuss open issues and assign actions
16:03:01 [dsinger_]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:03:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see schunter, [Mozilla], aleecia, dsriedel (muted), rvaneijk, +1.415.520.aabb, dsinger (muted), +1.646.654.aacc, jmayer, [Mozilla.a], ifette, +1.917.934.aaff,
16:03:02 [Zakim]
... +1.510.501.aagg, +1.202.326.aahh, WileyS, +1.206.658.aaii, ninjamarnau, efelten
16:03:02 [aleecia]
next agendum
16:03:02 [Zakim]
[Mozilla.a] has sidstamm
16:03:04 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has tl
16:03:16 [Zakim]
16:03:25 [aleecia]
(I can scribe if Wendy will backstop?)
16:03:28 [KevinT]
I can do first part of meeting only
16:03:28 [tl]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:03:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see schunter, [Mozilla], aleecia, dsriedel (muted), rvaneijk, +1.415.520.aabb, dsinger (muted), +1.646.654.aacc, jmayer, [Mozilla.a], ifette, +1.917.934.aaff,
16:03:31 [Zakim]
... +1.510.501.aagg, +1.202.326.aahh, WileyS, +1.206.658.aaii, ninjamarnau, efelten, fielding
16:03:34 [Zakim]
[Mozilla.a] has sidstamm
16:03:35 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has tl
16:03:41 [Zakim]
+ +1.813.907.aall
16:03:55 [alex_]
alex_ has joined #dnt
16:04:06 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.369.aamm
16:04:08 [wseltzer]
aleecia, sorry, I'm at ICANN, so only on irc and unable to scribe
16:04:13 [Zakim]
16:04:14 [aleecia]
scribe: KevinT
16:04:17 [hefferjr]
hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:04:25 [tedleung]
tedleung has joined #dnt
16:04:27 [aleecia]
close agendum 1
16:04:28 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.496.aann
16:04:28 [ifette]
is there a link to the minutes to comment on>
16:04:33 [ifette]
great :)
16:04:33 [KevinT]
minutes approved
16:04:35 [Zakim]
16:04:36 [aleecia]
close agendum 2
16:04:38 [aleecia]
16:04:41 [laurengelman]
laurengelman has joined #dnt
16:04:42 [vincent]
vincent has joined #dnt
16:04:46 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.733.aaoo
16:04:57 [Zakim]
16:05:10 [KevinT]
starting overdue action items
16:05:15 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
16:05:49 [aleecia]
Karl is unlikely to get to this. Why don't we send email and see if he's still interested.
16:05:54 [KevinT]
Action 26: Karl - not present
16:05:54 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 26
16:05:57 [aleecia]
If not, we can ask if anyone else wishes to take it up
16:06:02 [KevinT]
Action 47: Jonathan related to 49
16:06:02 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 47
16:06:04 [ac]
ac has joined #dnt
16:06:22 [dsinger_]
16:06:22 [trackbot]
ACTION-79 -- Karl Dubost to dubost to validate whether TPE lists can be use to store opt-back-in features or not -- due 2012-02-10 -- OPEN
16:06:22 [trackbot]
16:06:23 [KevinT]
jonathan drafting in a couple hours
16:06:43 [Zakim]
16:06:49 [Zakim]
16:07:00 [aleecia]
Let's ping Karl please.
16:07:13 [aleecia]
If Karl is not going to take it up, let's see if someone else is interested in doing so.
16:07:26 [aleecia]
Andy is a good candidate.
16:07:32 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.744.aapp
16:07:37 [KevinT]
Amy to work with Andy on action-79 to get status (Matthias to close it) and re-open if necessary
16:07:40 [chapell]
chapell has joined #DNT
16:07:40 [KevinT]
16:07:40 [trackbot]
ACTION-93 -- Jeffrey Chester to write suggestions for best practices for issue-115, assisted by Ninja, Alan, Jim -- due 2012-02-29 -- OPEN
16:07:40 [trackbot]
16:07:49 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:08:08 [jchester2]
I am on EU privacy call for the event next Monday. It's running late and I will join soon.
16:08:15 [aleecia]
thanks, Jeff
16:08:22 [cOlsen]
cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:08:30 [KevinT]
Ninja: in review - Matthias to send Jeff reminder
16:08:37 [KevinT]
16:08:37 [trackbot]
ACTION-104 -- Peter Eckersley to draft text for issue-24 -- due 2012-02-09 -- OPEN
16:08:37 [trackbot]
16:08:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.666.aaqq
16:08:39 [npdoty]
16:08:40 [trackbot]
ISSUE-24 -- Possible exemption for fraud detection and defense -- open
16:08:40 [trackbot]
16:08:45 [aleecia]
Amy, can you take point on this one?
16:08:52 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.326.aarr
16:09:00 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:09:16 [aleecia]
16:09:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.587.aass
16:09:23 [npdoty]
does anyone else want to take on this action?
16:09:43 [ifette]
There's 125 emails on that issue, /someone/ needs to do text for that issue
16:10:07 [johnsimpson]
apoogies just joining what issue?
16:10:19 [KevinT]
Amy to take ownership to check with Peter on this issue.
16:10:20 [tl]
16:10:20 [ifette]
16:10:20 [trackbot]
ISSUE-24 -- Possible exemption for fraud detection and defense -- open
16:10:20 [trackbot]
16:10:22 [WileyS]
We have draft text for security discovery and defense operational purpose exceptions
16:10:46 [dsinger_]
16:10:46 [trackbot]
ACTION-104 -- Peter Eckersley to draft text for issue-24 -- due 2012-02-09 -- OPEN
16:10:46 [trackbot]
16:10:47 [npdoty]
aleecia, are you talking about action-104 (security) or action-107 (offline data)?
16:10:48 [tl]
WileyS, That's you, Amy and pde?
16:10:59 [WileyS]
16:11:05 [tl]
16:11:23 [laurengelman]
isn't this issue 24?
16:11:24 [JC]
JC has joined #DNT
16:11:25 [KevinT]
Amy to take ownership for 104 and 107
16:11:25 [Zakim]
16:11:35 [WileyS]
Yes - Action 104 is linked to Issue 24
16:11:36 [KevinT]
16:11:37 [trackbot]
ACTION-109 -- Adrian Bateman to draft text for issue-54: Can first party provide targeting based on registration information even while sending DNT -- due 2012-02-13 -- OPEN
16:11:37 [trackbot]
16:12:08 [KevinT]
Adrian send proposal, move to pending review
16:12:11 [npdoty]
right? logged-in state? we had a proposal there?
16:12:37 [KevinT]
tl: Action-137 should also move to pending review
16:12:51 [KevinT]
16:12:51 [trackbot]
ACTION-120 -- Alexandros Deliyannis to write a proposal on web-wide exception API (for ISSUE-113) (with npdoty) -- due 2012-03-07 -- OPEN
16:12:51 [trackbot]
16:12:51 [aleecia]
zakim, mute me
16:12:51 [Zakim]
aleecia should now be muted
16:12:59 [WileyS]
Nick, I made the argument to dropping Logged-in State exceptions via the public email list yesterday
16:13:21 [WileyS]
Alex, it's 111
16:13:24 [aleecia]
thanks for issue-24 texts, Jonathan.
16:13:27 [Zakim]
16:13:35 [KevinT]
alex_: waiting on discussion from action-111, will submit next week
16:13:50 [KevinT]
16:13:50 [trackbot]
ACTION-123 -- Jeffrey Chester to draft a response to 1st/3rd proposal (with Lauren) -- due 2012-02-29 -- OPEN
16:13:50 [trackbot]
16:13:51 [npdoty]
great, thanks, WileyS; and can you confirm that it's in response to action-109?
16:13:55 [aleecia]
16:14:08 [aleecia]
Are you still working on it?
16:14:09 [KevinT]
jchester: no progress, needs one more week
16:14:18 [KevinT]
16:14:19 [trackbot]
ACTION-130 -- Matthias Schunter to collect use-cases for URI vs Response header -- due 2012-02-29 -- OPEN
16:14:19 [trackbot]
16:14:28 [kj]
kj has joined #dnt
16:14:46 [WileyS]
Nick, correct, Action 109
16:15:01 [aleecia]
that one's fine to close
16:15:01 [KevinT]
tl: defunct, will be discussed in Agenda 5 today
16:15:10 [aleecia]
has been overtaken by events
16:15:13 [KevinT]
16:15:13 [trackbot]
ACTION-133 -- Matthias Schunter to collect comparison criteria and summarize comparison in URIvsHeaders table -- due 2012-02-29 -- OPEN
16:15:13 [trackbot]
16:15:36 [johnsimpson]
16:15:37 [npdoty]
can we add the URI to that table to that action?
16:15:47 [aleecia]
good idea, Nick
16:15:55 [npdoty]
okay, will do
16:15:57 [KevinT]
move to pending review
16:16:06 [KevinT]
16:16:06 [trackbot]
ACTION-135 -- Shane Wiley to detail use case for ISSUE-111 (DNT;2) -- due 2012-02-29 -- OPEN
16:16:06 [trackbot]
16:16:19 [WileyS]
Thank you
16:16:23 [aleecia]
Shane - time estimate? :-)
16:16:33 [KevinT]
keep open due to active discussion
16:16:43 [johnsimpson]
do you want to assign a date?
16:16:50 [KevinT]
16:16:50 [trackbot]
ACTION-136 -- Matthias Schunter to propose simplified set of fields for URI and response headers -- due 2012-02-29 -- OPEN
16:16:50 [trackbot]
16:17:08 [npdoty]
fine with me
16:17:08 [KevinT]
schunter: next meeting
16:17:11 [WileyS]
Aleecia, if everyone would simply agree with me, then the time estimate would be today. :-) Difficult to guage an estimate at this time.
16:17:21 [aleecia]
That's what I had the :-)
16:17:37 [WileyS]
LOL - missed that
16:17:49 [npdoty]
WileyS, the action is just to provide a detailed use case, right? we don't all have to agree with you on it :)
16:18:02 [aleecia]
I agree -- it's hard to estimate right now
16:18:05 [KevinT]
tl: suggest closing and waiting for unified response discussion
16:18:09 [KevinT]
16:18:09 [trackbot]
ACTION-137 -- Thomas Lowenthal to draft alternate proposal on first-party targeting based on registration information -- due 2012-03-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
16:18:09 [trackbot]
16:18:21 [KevinT]
pending review
16:18:24 [KevinT]
16:18:24 [trackbot]
ACTION-138 -- David Singer to investigate definitions of user action/input in HTML5 or similar specs -- due 2012-03-07 -- OPEN
16:18:24 [trackbot]
16:18:39 [WileyS]
He was on but dropped a few minutes ago
16:18:39 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #dnt
16:18:44 [WileyS]
Now he's back on!
16:18:47 [aleecia]
David's back
16:18:51 [KevinT]
16:18:51 [trackbot]
ACTION-139 -- Thomas Lowenthal to improve wording of 3.9 "Meaningful Interaction" to avoid "affirmatively clicking" and make sure that "clicking" is replaced with something more general. -- due 2012-03-11 -- OPEN
16:18:51 [trackbot]
16:19:03 [npdoty]
dsigner sent a small piece of text on 138:
16:19:04 [aleecia]
Action-138, status when you get a chance please David
16:19:10 [KevinT]
tl: needs until next week
16:19:13 [npdoty]
16:19:16 [aleecia]
I think this is pending review for 138
16:19:29 [dsinger]
16:19:29 [trackbot]
ACTION-138 -- David Singer to investigate definitions of user action/input in HTML5 or similar specs -- due 2012-03-07 -- OPEN
16:19:29 [trackbot]
16:19:38 [Zakim]
16:19:41 [Zakim]
16:19:41 [npdoty]
16:19:41 [trackbot]
ACTION-140 -- David Singer to work on updates to TPE introduction (harmonize with Shane/John) -- due 2012-03-07 -- OPEN
16:19:41 [trackbot]
16:19:43 [KevinT]
16:19:43 [aleecia]
action-140 is close and shipped
16:19:43 [trackbot]
ACTION-141 -- Rigo Wenning to draft text on clarity that this is for user agents (addressing his concern) -- due 2012-03-07 -- OPEN
16:19:44 [trackbot]
16:19:58 [dsinger]
zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:19:58 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
16:19:58 [aleecia]
138 should be pending review, 140 is closed.
16:20:09 [WileyS]
Action 111 has several detailed use cases - if we feel we've collected enough use cases at this time then perhaps we can move the item to "pending review"
16:20:09 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 111
16:20:14 [Lia]
Lia has joined #dnt
16:20:42 [KevinT]
dsinger: action-138 completed
16:20:54 [aleecia]
16:20:57 [aleecia]
done, shipped.
16:21:08 [KevinT]
dsigner: action-140 completed
16:21:13 [npdoty]
"not completely harmonized, but certainly improved"
16:21:15 [WileyS]
I'll provide edits later but feel the new draft is moving in the right direction (but still too long)
16:21:22 [dsinger]
16:21:33 [tl]
How quaint is it that we use the verb "shipped" to describe pointing arrows to specific revisions of a version-control system?
16:21:40 [npdoty]
+1 to WileyS on a shorter intro
16:21:43 [aleecia]
Shane - my guess is we'll be fiddling with that text until the version
16:21:45 [KevinT]
sorry dsigner
16:21:54 [WileyS]
Aleecia - agreed.
16:22:09 [aleecia]
My tendency is to write the abstract last, after the rest. Same idea here, I think.
16:22:39 [BrianTs]
BrianTs has joined #DNT
16:23:06 [aleecia]
If it would make anyone feel more comfortable, we can do a new action of "revise intro" in deep sleep and take it up later.
16:23:18 [WileyS]
16:23:19 [KevinT]
New business: issue-111
16:23:22 [aleecia]
I'm not offering to open it right now...
16:23:23 [KevinT]
16:23:23 [trackbot]
ISSUE-111 -- Signaling state/existence of site-specific exceptions -- open
16:23:23 [trackbot]
16:23:39 [aleecia]
next agendum
16:23:47 [aleecia]
close agendum 3
16:23:51 [tl]
16:23:57 [aleecia]
16:24:10 [aleecia]
16:25:04 [aleecia]
16:25:09 [mav]
mav has joined #dnt
16:25:09 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
16:25:57 [schunter]
Zakim, mute me
16:25:57 [Zakim]
schunter should now be muted
16:26:26 [jmayer]
If we have web-wide exceptions, the same issues around exchanges crop up.
16:26:39 [KevinT]
WileyS: worked with Adobe on proposal for two key perspectives before proposed text. 1) consumer - I trust the "site", 2) I trust this "third party" - web wide
16:26:42 [schunter]
Zakim, unmute me
16:26:42 [Zakim]
schunter should no longer be muted
16:26:46 [schunter]
16:26:53 [jmayer]
I'm concerned the practical effect of this proposal will be shunting sites and consumers to blanket exceptions instead of site-specific exceptions.
16:27:19 [jmayer]
Previous proposals would have simply allowed more flexibility.
16:27:24 [vincent]
16:27:29 [schunter]
16:27:31 [ifette]
q+ to ask for examples of third parties we expect users would "trust" across the web
16:27:42 [jmayer]
ifette, I imagine Google...
16:27:52 [ninjamarnau]
16:27:59 [aleecia]
16:28:21 [jmayer]
Yes ifette, social widgets would likely be a common use case.
16:28:39 [dsinger]
so this is "I trust the NY Times and their choice of 3rd parties, and do not want to go through all their 3rd parties explicitly"?
16:28:39 [KevinT]
… Large publishers: would prefer only trust site (vs. third party) . Recommend use of wildcard that is passed from site to third parties under contract (DNT:0)
16:29:10 [schunter]
new semantics: DNT;0 = you have an exeption
16:29:16 [schunter]
DNT;1 = do not track me
16:29:29 [KevinT]
… removes needs for server-side calls, polling, etc…
16:29:30 [jchester2]
I am also concerned that this proposal would weaken a user choice on DNT, providing uninformed blanket exceptions.
16:29:52 [KevinT]
…. there is some need for server-to-server communication; adchoices meta data is a possible recommendation
16:30:05 [ninjamarnau]
the problem is that nyt does not know which third parties are part of such an ad chain like kevin mentioned in his emails
16:30:06 [npdoty]
can someone point me to this proposal on the mailing list? I thought I was up to date on these threads, but I haven't seen this.
16:30:18 [ifette]
16:30:24 [ifette]
(I think)
16:30:31 [dsinger]
can't the browser notice "you are visiting NY Times" and therefore send DNT:0 to all 3rd parties pulled in by that site?
16:30:34 [tl]
schunter, Not "exception", DNT:0 is "You have consent to track me right now."
16:30:39 [KevinT]
…. adchoices meta data— gives more data on what is inside the ad chain
16:30:57 [aleecia]
We run into problems in Europe with *
16:31:20 [johnsimpson]
16:31:20 [schunter]
16:31:21 [jchester2]
We need to understand the full impact of using AdChoices metadata, and its impact on user choice (based on how its operationalized)
16:31:30 [ifette]
What if YieldManager has an exception but the ad network it syndicates to does not
16:32:09 [schunter]
16:32:12 [ninjamarnau]
European law demands knowledge or at least possible knowledge of third parties - a blanket exception is no option
16:32:17 [schunter]
ack tl
16:32:21 [schunter]
Zakim, mute me
16:32:22 [Zakim]
schunter should now be muted
16:32:33 [aleecia]
zakim, unmute me
16:32:34 [Zakim]
aleecia should no longer be muted
16:33:19 [schunter]
Zakim, unmute me
16:33:19 [Zakim]
schunter should no longer be muted
16:34:31 [WileyS]
Disagree Ninja - as processors do not need to be disclosed per the Data Protection Directive (and the draft regulation doesn't change this stance)
16:35:19 [ninjamarnau]
WileyS, the third parties are not processors here but rather controllers in my opinion
16:35:31 [npdoty]
WileyS, I thought we were talking about additional "third parties", i.e. controllers
16:35:37 [WileyS]
Ninja - exactly, your opinion, which is not EU law :-)
16:36:01 [aleecia]
Shane you're suggesting you know EU privacy better than Ninja? :-)
16:36:08 [aleecia]
16:36:19 [schunter]
16:37:09 [ninjamarnau]
I'm not talking about all third parties, but all cases when they collect and process data on their own behalf
16:37:09 [WileyS]
Aleecia - no comment :-)
16:37:46 [aleecia]
16:38:01 [ninjamarnau]
you're always welcome to prove me wrong Shane :-)
16:38:19 [tlr]
tlr has joined #dnt
16:38:26 [WileyS]
Ninja, I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong. :-)
16:39:06 [npdoty]
tl: the site-specific exception API is orthogonal to server-to-server communication, which would always be allowed if receiving DNT:0
16:39:17 [schunter]
Zakim, mute me
16:39:18 [Zakim]
schunter should now be muted
16:39:21 [ifette]
So if YieldManager gets DNT:0 and redirects to AdExcahngeXYZ....
16:39:25 [vincent]
16:39:43 [schunter]
Zakim, unmute me
16:39:43 [Zakim]
schunter should no longer be muted
16:40:41 [schunter]
16:40:47 [schunter]
ack ifette
16:40:47 [Zakim]
ifette, you wanted to ask for examples of third parties we expect users would "trust" across the web
16:40:55 [npdoty]
(personally I don't think user agents ever need to send DNT:0 to the 1st-party site)
16:40:56 [WileyS]
Dynamic delivery environments break the 1st party / 3rd party list concept
16:41:29 [KevinT]
ifette: user would have to add an exception for a third party
16:42:18 [WileyS]
Nick, how is that possible? Isn't the first party the one requesting an exception for their site. If they never are told they've been granted an exception they'll have to ask the user for one every page of the site (or at least the first page of the session)
16:42:31 [KevinT]
… potential conflict from browser setting vs. backchannel passage through ad chain?
16:42:35 [Zakim]
- +1.206.658.aaii
16:42:41 [schunter]
16:42:53 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.494.aatt
16:43:00 [schunter]
16:44:00 [npdoty]
WileyS, first-party sites remember a lot about my preferences right now without asking me over and over again, with cookies, for example
16:44:07 [Zakim]
16:44:43 [JC]
16:44:49 [schunter]
16:44:52 [WileyS]
Nick - but they still need to capture it once. AND users need to go back to each first party to manage those preferences. By capturing exceptions in the browser, the user has a single place to manage their preferences.
16:45:02 [JC]
I agree
16:45:37 [JC]
Browser could send DNT:1 and 3rd party on site could send DNT:0
16:45:42 [KevinT]
… will craft email to address issue with multiple redirects to get better clarity
16:45:54 [schunter]
16:46:06 [aleecia]
indeed if Ian can't figure it out, the doc is deeply broken in terms of communication
16:46:10 [npdoty]
Agreed, WileyS! The JS api returns a value to the first-party so they can capture it. And I agree, site-specific exceptions are best managed by the user agent for that reason.
16:46:32 [schunter]
16:46:35 [dsinger]
I share the confusion. Reading and thinking needed
16:46:41 [schunter]
ack ninjamarnau
16:46:44 [WileyS]
Nick, I'd rather not carry the weight of JS APIs if I can get the simple signal in the header.
16:46:44 [schunter]
ack JC
16:46:46 [ifette]
ACTION: ifette to review the proposed text for ISSUE-111 in the context of a redirect chain where some parties get 0, some parties get 1, and there is potentially some data sharing between the parties in the redirect chain
16:46:46 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-146 - Review the proposed text for ISSUE-111 in the context of a redirect chain where some parties get 0, some parties get 1, and there is potentially some data sharing between the parties in the redirect chain [on Ian Fette - due 2012-03-21].
16:46:50 [npdoty]
That was how you and I designed the JS API to begin with, right?
16:47:14 [ifette]
that's similar to what i was asking
16:47:14 [npdoty]
scribenick: npdoty
16:47:21 [dsinger]
16:47:33 [KevinT]
thanks npdoty
16:47:51 [schunter]
16:47:56 [npdoty]
jc: there's an ad network on the page, sends a request to another page to serve the ad -- doesn't it just send on the signal it received?
16:48:04 [WileyS]
Nick, I agree and for "known" 3rd parties it makes perfect sense. But as the discussion moved to dynamic serving environments (like exchanges), it breaks our original approach so we've been looking for simpler implementations.
16:48:17 [jmayer]
16:48:20 [jmayer]
16:48:22 [jmayer]
16:48:24 [jmayer]
16:48:35 [schunter]
I believe so far, I have not seen any argument for changing the API?
16:49:10 [schunter]
16:49:15 [npdoty]
tl: dnt:1 doesn't mean that the user isn't allowed to know things about the user, just about this particular http interaction
16:49:43 [schunter]
16:49:44 [npdoty]
... doesn't stop you from going down to the pub tomorrow and telling other wacky stories about me
16:49:46 [aleecia]
tl: DNT is specific to a specific network interaction, the specific request. Just about the conversation now
16:49:53 [npdoty]
JC: sounds good, I hope that's clear in the spec
16:50:23 [aleecia]
dsinger: if DNT to some third parties and not all, the first party doesn't know who those are. First party can pass info to the wrong parties.
16:50:30 [schunter]
16:50:33 [schunter]
ack dsingert
16:50:37 [aleecia]
… 3rd parties can ignore it, better if no passing at all
16:50:38 [schunter]
ack dsinger
16:50:40 [WileyS]
16:50:41 [ifette]
q+ to state the first party may wish to know the state of what's happening with the third parties, e.g. is it worth displaying this giant facebook plugin
16:50:54 [aleecia]
… two fall backs, including API
16:51:11 [schunter]
mute me
16:51:12 [aleecia]
tl: as long as this specific network interaction, yes.
16:51:18 [npdoty]
dsinger: the third parties who receive DNT:1 should still ignore the data they receive back-channel from the first party, and it would be better if they didn't receive it at all, but we're still good
16:51:30 [schunter]
16:51:36 [schunter]
ack jmayer
16:51:37 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
16:51:49 [npdoty]
npdoty-not-scribe: this is one reason I think the first party should always receive DNT:1
16:52:10 [aleecia]
jmayer: three points. first, motivation is exceptions are "broken" by ad exchange model. disagree, see dlist.
16:52:15 [npdoty]
jmayer: concern that exceptions are "broken" for the ad exchange model, but they aren't for the reasons I described on the list
16:52:26 [aleecia]
… but 3rd parties still have web-wide exceptions under Shane's proposal.
16:52:48 [aleecia]
… unless CNN prompts you to change status, you have exception for Yahoo! and no others, if you had previously trusted Yahoo!
16:52:53 [npdoty]
... when I go to CNN and I have a web-wide exception for Yahoo and no other advertiser, still have the question of propagating different DNT status
16:53:04 [aleecia]
… need browser API or other method anyway; problem does not go away (if there is a problem)
16:53:24 [aleecia]
… 2nd: new communications on backend between 1st and 3rd parties
16:53:37 [WileyS]
Not true - many server-to-server APIs in place across the Internet today
16:53:38 [aleecia]
… bad outcome if DNT incentivizes new channels to share more about users
16:53:39 [schunter]
Zakim, mute me
16:53:39 [Zakim]
schunter should now be muted
16:53:49 [npdoty]
... I am concerned about opening more back-end communication channels between 1st and 3rd parties, good because it gives us more insight into what's going on
16:54:12 [schunter]
I believe that if a site knows its third parties {tp1, ...., tpN}, it can ask what subset has exceptions.
16:54:13 [npdoty]
... would be unfortunate if DNT incentivized more back-end communication channels
16:54:19 [aleecia]
… 3rd, fingerprinting. Different technical suggestions here, but don't think blanket first party - fingerprintable information there (missing part)
16:54:43 [aleecia]
… need to deal with fingerprinting both for what we allow, and what advice we give to implementers
16:54:43 [schunter]
Zakim, unmute me
16:54:43 [Zakim]
schunter should no longer be muted
16:54:44 [schunter]
16:54:52 [schunter]
ack WileyS
16:55:06 [aleecia]
WileyS: confusion, but dynamic environment is the core issue.
16:55:06 [schunter]
If a site does not know its third parties, then it cannot ask and some may not have exceptions.
16:55:10 [npdoty]
WileyS: the key issue is the dynamic environment
16:55:30 [aleecia]
… publisher's ability to gain an exception for themselves and 3rd parties they work with.
16:55:32 [npdoty]
scribenick: aleecia
16:55:50 [aleecia]
… dynamic adsorbing, no way for 1st party to know who ultimate 3rd party to be
16:56:10 [aleecia]
… polling mechanism doesn't work. Until ad is served, the 3rd party isn't known (or on the list)
16:56:17 [tl]
16:56:18 [aleecia]
… that's the problem we're trying to solve
16:56:20 [schunter]
Zakim, unmute me
16:56:20 [Zakim]
schunter was not muted, schunter
16:56:23 [npdoty]
16:56:27 [schunter]
16:56:27 [jmayer]
Why does it matter if the page knows which *ad* is served?
16:56:32 [vincent]
how does that work with opt-out cookies currently?
16:56:37 [jmayer]
They don't know now, and that's fine.
16:56:40 [aleecia]
… if we're trusting a website and what happens there, removes the need for the JS API.
16:56:53 [aleecia]
… all parties on that site get DNT:0 signal
16:57:05 [jmayer]
What may matter is a publisher knowing which third parties are and aren't excepted.
16:57:13 [schunter]
In the current proposal, you need to ask for ¨*¨ thirdparties if you want to use dynamic serving (=do not know the actual third parties).
16:57:13 [jmayer]
16:57:16 [aleecia]
ifette: similar question, as a first party want to know status of third paries.
16:57:33 [jmayer]
ifette, agree that first parties should be able to learn third party exception status
16:57:38 [jmayer]
many ways to do this, see the list
16:57:42 [aleecia]
… is it worth having a FB plug in, or should I not display it? If DNT to some ad networks, choose the one with DNT:0
16:57:53 [jmayer]
16:58:03 [aleecia]
… what info does 1st party get about their 3rd parties on their site
16:58:08 [schunter]
ack ifette
16:58:08 [Zakim]
ifette, you wanted to state the first party may wish to know the state of what's happening with the third parties, e.g. is it worth displaying this giant facebook plugin
16:58:09 [schunter]
ack tl
16:59:01 [aleecia]
tl: covered by tools available. for Shane's point: not knowing the final leaf of the ad serving decision tree, only way to request DNT:0 to all those parties is a this_site, * exception. That's transparent. Some sites know all of their third parites.
16:59:01 [aleecia]
16:59:19 [laurengelman]
that could be good for competition if publishers could choose ad networks that have better privacy (assuming that the increased DNT:0s are a fair indicator of that)
16:59:32 [ifette]
whenever anyone says "if users understand that" i get big red flags going up in my mind :)
16:59:32 [schunter]
I agree.
16:59:35 [aleecia]
… for other sites, need to make a * request to understand. Users can understand "Yahoo! would like to allow any tracker" and make a choice
16:59:49 [Zakim]
- +1.917.934.aaff
16:59:57 [aleecia]
… users have the right sort of choice. If a lot of sites ask site, * then that's ok.
17:00:02 [schunter]
17:00:07 [Zakim]
- +1.415.520.aabb
17:00:22 [aleecia]
… sites may make multiple API calls: *, or social widgets in a different call, all of these uses are legit
17:00:39 [aleecia]
… to Ian's point: they can discover the status via API, and user may be prompted
17:00:48 [laurengelman]
I have to hop but most sites do not know all their third parties
17:01:00 [aleecia]
Ian: don't think that's accurate. Realistically, a priori want to know to serve appropriate content
17:01:16 [WileyS]
Agree with Ian - there is no way to know BEFORE serving content with the current draft implementation
17:01:18 [aleecia]
Ian: don't want to figure out client side what your page should look like
17:01:51 [ifette]
Jonathan, I said *before* the page loads :)
17:01:57 [vincent]
I think that site-specific exceptions would be an opportunity for publisher to know which 3rd parties are distrusted
17:02:12 [schunter]
17:02:17 [aleecia]
jmayer: very specific - how do we make sure 1st party knows status for 3rd parties. could do: 1. browser API only exposed to 1st party. 2. first and third party work it out asynch
17:02:23 [ifette]
zakim, who's making noise?
17:02:24 [dsinger]
zakim, who is making noise?
17:02:28 [schunter]
Zakim, who is making noise
17:02:28 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is making noise', schunter
17:02:34 [Zakim]
ifette, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: johnsimpson (47%), +1.202.494.aatt (45%), jmayer (26%)
17:02:41 [npdoty]
Zakim, mute johnsimpson
17:02:41 [Zakim]
johnsimpson should now be muted
17:02:45 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: johnsimpson (17%), +1.202.494.aatt (16%)
17:02:50 [aleecia]
jamyer: not hard web engineering. first party learning about third a prior is technically possible, we can make it easier.
17:02:56 [schunter]
17:03:16 [johnsimpson]
17:03:18 [aleecia]
thanks, Ian, for joining us
17:03:39 [npdoty]
17:03:44 [WileyS]
If user consents to "*", are we agreed that DNT:0 should be sent to all 3rd parties on that publisher's site?
17:03:48 [WileyS]
If yes, then I'm fine.
17:03:48 [npdoty]
I'm not sure I can add as much
17:03:50 [johnsimpson]
zakim, mute me
17:03:50 [Zakim]
johnsimpson was already muted, johnsimpson
17:03:55 [aleecia]
schunter: thinks there's no fundamental difference suggested. Want different proposals.
17:04:09 [schunter]
17:04:11 [npdoty]
if user consents to publisher,*, yes, the user agent will send DNT:0 to all 3rd parties, including after redirects, yes.
17:04:11 [aleecia]
… anyone want an action to draft a different proposal?
17:04:12 [jmayer]
17:04:15 [Zakim]
17:04:19 [schunter]
17:04:31 [tl]
ack schunter
17:04:32 [WileyS]
Nick, Thank you - then I believe there is no issue here
17:04:32 [schunter]
17:04:35 [schunter]
ack schunter
17:04:39 [aleecia]
schunter: API doesn't need to be changed from what I've learned
17:04:43 [Zakim]
- +1.646.666.aaqq
17:04:45 [tl]
Behold, the queue is empty!
17:04:45 [Zakim]
17:04:57 [aleecia]
… API looks sound, no need for changes
17:04:59 [Zakim]
17:05:12 [tl]
WileyS: Yes, if the user accepts {thissite,*} that's exactly what's going on.
17:05:37 [aleecia]
Nick: if publisher asks for *, then sends DNT:0 to all parties after redirects
17:05:45 [schunter]
User may choose to only say ´yes´ for a specified list of third parties.
17:05:55 [aleecia]
Shane: if user can convey that to all parties, then we're fine.
17:06:03 [aleecia]
tl: that's exactly what * means
17:06:12 [aleecia]
Ian: not subsequent requests
17:06:15 [WileyS]
Correct - first request fails
17:06:26 [ninjamarnau]
how can a user trust a first party, when we assume that this first party does not know all of its third parties in a complex chain of multiple redirects
17:06:28 [jmayer]
Don't think that's an issue.
17:06:32 [aleecia]
17:06:58 [npdoty]
ninjamarnau, I agree, I'm not sure "trust" is necessarily the right concept here, but if this is clear to the user, then I think it's acceptable
17:07:03 [mav]
mav has joined #dnt
17:07:04 [aleecia]
schunter: Google sends a page asking for G and all 3rd parties in response to DNT:1
17:07:14 [aleecia]
tl: also DNT:0.
17:07:25 [WileyS]
Ninja, they trust the 1st party to only work with the appropriate 3rd parties
17:07:43 [vincent]
wasn't the issue on the granularity of site specific exception?
17:07:45 [npdoty]
WileyS, even though the 1st party doesn't know the 3rd parties that it works with?
17:07:47 [aleecia]
… if you are a publisher, you send everyone DNT:0 except one social network, and you are a publisher and ask for *, I'm going to say no.
17:07:58 [WileyS]
1st party takes on the onus of ensuring only appropriate 3rd parties appears on their site and can manage this proactively via their ad networks and exchanges
17:08:24 [aleecia]
schunter: it's sort of black listing, if I don't like a widget everywhere, I need to say no to all * requests
17:08:36 [aleecia]
… if site doesn't tell me all third parties, I have to say no
17:08:44 [jmayer]
17:08:48 [aleecia]
Ian: site has no idea which parts of content are getting 1 or 0
17:09:06 [aleecia]
tl: can ask self, 3rd party -- on JS request at a time
17:09:06 [schunter]
17:09:39 [aleecia]
Ian: I have to know every ad network I might redirect to, right?
17:09:56 [ifette]
this seems problematic to me
17:10:03 [schunter]
17:10:19 [aleecia]
tl: yes, but might be sensible to go for common options first. Exposes one thing missing: ability to request * except for {foo, bar}
17:10:41 [aleecia]
ifette: but I don't know who I should be accepting
17:10:50 [npdoty]
17:10:52 [aleecia]
jmayer is in the queue
17:10:54 [tl]
17:11:01 [aleecia]
(thank you both)
17:11:09 [npdoty]
17:11:29 [ninjamarnau]
WileyS, I agree. But I am concerned that this is not the case. Though this is not an issue DNT can solve.
17:11:54 [ifette]
ACTION: ifette to enumerate scenarios in which requesting exception[mysite,*] might not work, e.g. user says no, then how do you figure out what you can or cannot get exceptions for, such as if user is only saying no to facebook but you don't know which, if any, of their ad networks the user is objecting to
17:11:54 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-147 - Enumerate scenarios in which requesting exception[mysite,*] might not work, e.g. user says no, then how do you figure out what you can or cannot get exceptions for, such as if user is only saying no to facebook but you don't know which, if any, of their ad networks the user is objecting to [on Ian Fette - due 2012-03-21].
17:12:23 [WileyS]
Ninja, the existance of DNT and AdChoices are bringing increased awareness and focus across publishers to "care" about this situation and take more proactive steps to manage the quality of the 3rd parties on their site.
17:12:48 [WileyS]
Okay - I can help explain the corner cases
17:12:49 [ninjamarnau]
hopefully :-)
17:12:55 [schunter]
The fact that a user agent says ´no´ to ¨thissite, *¨ if a user does not like a third party is complicated.
17:12:57 [jmayer]
17:12:58 [schunter]
17:13:15 [aleecia]
jeff: how does this affect real-time ad exchange model
17:13:17 [schunter]
17:13:24 [npdoty]
WileyS, if the first parties are taking that onus to audit, then wouldn't they know the list of 3rd-parties to request for?
17:13:28 [schunter]
ack jmayer
17:13:30 [aleecia]
(so basically Ian's point…)
17:13:46 [johnsimpson]
17:13:48 [aleecia]
jmayer: concerns from "corner cases" assume a polling-based rather than list-based API.
17:14:11 [aleecia]
… not sure fingerprinting concerns are a problem
17:14:19 [dsinger]
you should not be able to ask questions about other than yourself and in your own status
17:14:20 [npdoty]
I don't think that works, but can we take that discussion offline.
17:14:48 [Zakim]
- +1.202.494.aatt
17:14:49 [aleecia]
… could have APIs in browser that a 3rd party could abuse for tracking, since we have countless examples already.
17:15:03 [dsinger]
'what are my exceptions?' is the question (where 'my' is the script origin, as defined by cross-site scripting)
17:15:26 [WileyS]
Agree - I've been asking for that on the chain :-)
17:15:32 [schunter]
ACTION schunter to restructure and clarify ISSUE-111
17:15:32 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-148 - Restructure and clarify ISSUE-111 [on Matthias Schunter - due 2012-03-21].
17:15:36 [aleecia]
… given there are technical ways to limit scope of API to browser, we should open the discussion on fingerprinting again, since marginal privacy risk may be slight and there may be gains
17:15:41 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.494.aauu
17:15:49 [npdoty]
I'm not sure I agree with Jonathan's interpretation of the implementation risk, but I'm perfectly happy to open that for more discussion
17:15:54 [aleecia]
tl: are you taking an action, Jonathan?
17:16:04 [WileyS]
Please add me to the action item for the deeper exploration on this topic.
17:16:18 [aleecia]
jmayer: already have a proposal.
17:16:35 [Zakim]
- +1.202.494.aauu
17:16:36 [schunter]
ISSUE revive Javascript API for obtaining exceptions as a list (only for 1st parties; 3rd parties cannot call it)
17:16:44 [aleecia]
dsinger: we can take script origin so you can only find out about yourself
17:16:52 [aleecia]
ian: first party wasn't origin based?
17:17:22 [schunter]
Zakim, mute me
17:17:22 [Zakim]
schunter should now be muted
17:17:24 [npdoty]
I suggest one of us take an action to start a thread between jmayer and the browser vendors (at least Mozilla + Microsoft who had the fingerprinting concern) to investigate that risk
17:17:28 [aleecia]
tl: jquery from CDN, half my stuff wrapped up in jquery, how is browser knowing which things are who?
17:17:57 [aleecia]
jmayer: Ian, thinks first parties might span multiple domains, but using domains for technical implementations
17:18:05 [schunter]
Zakim, unmute me
17:18:06 [Zakim]
schunter should no longer be muted
17:18:31 [KevinT1]
KevinT1 has joined #dnt
17:18:43 [aleecia]
… Tom's question, how do we know who can call the API, not as concerned since browser already has top level origin for reasons on the dlist (Sid) - if your origin is the same as the top level, API does useful things.
17:18:55 [aleecia]
tl: can you write that to compare?
17:18:58 [schunter]
ACTION jmayer to write alternate API
17:18:58 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-149 - Write alternate API [on Jonathan Mayer - due 2012-03-21].
17:19:02 [aleecia]
jmayer: sure, sending email now
17:19:20 [aleecia]
schunter: other actions here?
17:19:42 [aleecia]
… if not, would like to have a look at status on the header + well known URI
17:19:50 [Zakim]
- +1.202.496.aann
17:20:01 [aleecia]
tl: status is, writing now, will send out by tuesday.
17:20:23 [aleecia]
… must have tracking status resource. response header only when something changes within cache duration
17:20:40 [aleecia]
… may send response header the rest of the time
17:20:46 [npdoty]
thanks for the summary, though
17:20:55 [schunter]
17:20:55 [aleecia]
schunter: full discussion next call
17:21:10 [aleecia]
… discussion about opt-in globally and EU law?
17:21:24 [WileyS]
Sounds good
17:21:32 [aleecia]
ninja: disagreeing with Shane and will take off-line, have discussion, then get back to the group
17:21:40 [npdoty]
+1, thanks to Ninja and Shane for doing so
17:21:44 [aleecia]
action here?
17:21:44 [trackbot]
Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
17:21:46 [WileyS]
LOL - she said she's "NOT" disagreeing with Shane
17:21:56 [schunter]
ACTION ninjamarnau to analyse EU legal implications of exceptions to (thissite, *)
17:21:56 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - ninjamarnau
17:21:58 [aleecia]
habit! :-)
17:22:12 [aleecia]
s/disagreeing with/not disagreeing with
17:22:13 [npdoty]
s/disagreeing with/not disagreeing over law but maybe over mechanism/
17:22:24 [ninjamarnau]
thanks nick
17:22:57 [ninjamarnau]
yes, I do think we are NOT disagreeing. I am optimistic :-)
17:22:57 [Zakim]
- +1.202.587.aass
17:22:58 [aleecia]
schunter: didn't rip API apart, can improve it, but not wholesale shift. Use cases help
17:23:04 [aleecia]
so sorry
17:23:04 [Zakim]
17:23:07 [Zakim]
17:23:25 [aleecia]
17:23:27 [Zakim]
- +1.202.326.aarr
17:23:28 [Zakim]
17:23:28 [Zakim]
17:23:30 [Zakim]
- +1.202.744.aapp
17:23:31 [Zakim]
17:23:32 [tl]
Thanks for scribing, aleecia!
17:23:32 [Zakim]
- +1.206.369.aamm
17:23:32 [Zakim]
17:23:32 [Zakim]
- +1.510.501.aagg
17:23:33 [Zakim]
17:23:36 [Zakim]
17:23:37 [Zakim]
- +1.646.654.aacc
17:23:37 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has left #dnt
17:23:38 [johnsimpson]
17:23:39 [Zakim]
- +1.617.733.aaoo
17:23:41 [Zakim]
17:23:42 [tedleung]
tedleung has left #dnt
17:23:43 [Zakim]
- +1.202.326.aahh
17:23:46 [Zakim]
17:23:46 [npdoty]
Zakim, list attendees
17:23:47 [Zakim]
17:23:51 [tl]
It's great when we finish early.
17:23:51 [Zakim]
17:23:54 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been tl, schunter, aleecia, +2191374aaaa, dsriedel, rvaneijk, +1.415.520.aabb, dsinger, +1.646.654.aacc, +1.202.684.aadd, jmayer, [Mozilla],
17:23:54 [aleecia]
RRSAgent, set logs world-visible
17:23:56 [Zakim]
... sidstamm, +1.650.253.aaee, ifette, +1.917.934.aaff, +1.510.501.aagg, +1.202.326.aahh, WileyS, +1.206.658.aaii, +49.431.98.aajj, +1.202.326.aakk, efelten, ninjamarnau, fielding,
17:23:58 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
17:23:59 [Zakim]
... +1.813.907.aall, +1.206.369.aamm, +1.202.496.aann, +1.617.733.aaoo, alex, npdoty, [Microsoft], +1.202.744.aapp, +1.646.666.aaqq, +1.202.326.aarr, +1.202.587.aass, johnsimpson,
17:24:03 [Zakim]
... jchester2, +1.202.494.aatt, +1.202.494.aauu
17:24:05 [Zakim]
17:24:05 [aleecia]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:24:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate aleecia
17:24:06 [Zakim]
17:24:08 [Zakim]
- +1.813.907.aall
17:24:10 [Zakim]
17:24:13 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
17:24:15 [Zakim]
17:24:19 [Zakim]
17:24:20 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has left #dnt
17:24:23 [schunter]
ACTION ninjamarnau to analyse EU legal implications of exceptions to (thissite, *)
17:24:23 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - ninjamarnau
17:24:23 [Zakim]
17:24:25 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:24:25 [Zakim]
Attendees were tl, schunter, aleecia, +2191374aaaa, dsriedel, rvaneijk, +1.415.520.aabb, dsinger, +1.646.654.aacc, +1.202.684.aadd, jmayer, [Mozilla], sidstamm, +1.650.253.aaee,
17:24:25 [Zakim]
... ifette, +1.917.934.aaff, +1.510.501.aagg, +1.202.326.aahh, WileyS, +1.206.658.aaii, +49.431.98.aajj, +1.202.326.aakk, efelten, ninjamarnau, fielding, +1.813.907.aall,
17:24:28 [Zakim]
... +1.206.369.aamm, +1.202.496.aann, +1.617.733.aaoo, alex, npdoty, [Microsoft], +1.202.744.aapp, +1.646.666.aaqq, +1.202.326.aarr, +1.202.587.aass, johnsimpson, jchester2,
17:24:31 [Zakim]
... +1.202.494.aatt, +1.202.494.aauu
17:24:36 [schunter]
ACTION nmarnau to analyse EU legal implications of exceptions to (thissite, *)
17:24:36 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-150 - Analyse EU legal implications of exceptions to (thissite, *) [on Ninja Marnau - due 2012-03-21].
17:42:54 [tlr]
tlr has joined #dnt
18:24:48 [mischat]
mischat has joined #dnt
18:50:05 [KevinT]
KevinT has joined #dnt
19:32:13 [ifette]
ifette has joined #dnt
20:16:30 [tlr]
tlr has joined #dnt
20:48:03 [KevinT1]
KevinT1 has joined #dnt
21:50:08 [KevinT]
KevinT has joined #dnt
23:50:08 [mischat]
mischat has joined #dnt