IRC log of dnt on 2012-08-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

05:19:03 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined &dnt
07:55:31 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined &dnt
12:15:18 [Zakim]
Zakim has left &dnt
13:25:38 [Ian]
Ian has left &dnt
13:25:41 [Ian]
Ian has joined &dnt
13:25:43 [Ian]
rrsagent, bye
13:25:43 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
13:25:43 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: IJ will draft home page news item [1]
13:25:43 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
15:42:06 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:42:07 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:42:15 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #dnt
15:42:24 [aleecia]
Zakim, this will be dnt
15:42:24 [Zakim]
ok, aleecia; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 18 minutes
15:42:35 [aleecia]
chair: aleecia
15:42:43 [aleecia]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:42:52 [aleecia]
15:43:06 [aleecia]
agenda+ Selection of scribe
15:43:17 [aleecia]
agenda+ Review of overdue action items:
15:43:27 [aleecia]
agenda+ Any comments on minutes posted a week ago:
15:43:37 [aleecia]
agenda+ Quick check that callers are identified
15:43:55 [aleecia]
agenda+ Discussion of face-to-face meeting
15:44:06 [aleecia]
agenda+ Discussion of how we move forward on permitted uses
15:44:21 [aleecia]
agenda+ pending review texts
15:44:37 [aleecia]
agenda+ Announce next meeting & adjourn
15:44:49 [aleecia]
15:52:00 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:52:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.674.aaaa
15:52:07 [BrendanIAB]
BrendanIAB has joined #dnt
15:52:17 [aleecia]
Good morning, Brendan
15:52:34 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
15:52:35 [BrendanIAB]
Good morning Aleecia
15:52:40 [aleecia]
Hi, Nick!
15:52:54 [aleecia]
…I'm thinking Friday
15:53:36 [Zakim]
15:53:51 [BrendanIAB]
Zakim, ??P5 is probably BrendanIAB
15:53:51 [Zakim]
+BrendanIAB?; got it
15:53:59 [aleecia]
Please mute :-)
15:54:21 [Zakim]
15:54:51 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:54:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.408.674.aaaa, BrendanIAB?, npdoty
15:55:00 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaaa is aleecia
15:55:00 [Zakim]
+aleecia; got it
15:56:13 [efelten]
efelten has joined #dnt
15:57:22 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.326.aabb
15:57:28 [efelten]
Zakim, aabb is me
15:57:28 [Zakim]
+efelten; got it
15:58:01 [ninjamarnau]
ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
15:58:13 [adrianba]
adrianba has joined #dnt
15:58:29 [suegl]
suegl has joined #dnt
15:58:58 [justin_]
justin_ has joined #dnt
15:59:03 [Zakim]
+ +49.431.98.aacc
15:59:04 [robsherman]
robsherman has joined #dnt
15:59:10 [Chris_IAB]
Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
15:59:11 [Lia]
Lia has joined #dnt
15:59:26 [ninjamarnau]
Zakim, aacc is ninjamarnau
15:59:26 [Zakim]
+ninjamarnau; got it
15:59:28 [Zakim]
15:59:28 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
15:59:38 [jchester2]
jchester2 has joined #dnt
15:59:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.370.aadd
15:59:45 [Zakim]
15:59:48 [suegl]
zakim, [Microsoft] has suegl
15:59:48 [Zakim]
+suegl; got it
15:59:50 [robsherman]
zakim, aadd is robsherman
15:59:50 [Zakim]
+robsherman; got it
15:59:54 [Chris_IAB]
just joined via Skype
16:00:04 [npdoty]
Zakim, ??P13 is probably Chris_IAB
16:00:04 [Zakim]
+Chris_IAB?; got it
16:00:15 [Zakim]
16:00:21 [vincent]
vincent has joined #dnt
16:00:33 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.654.aaee
16:00:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.734.aaff
16:00:50 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.658.aagg
16:00:59 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #dnt
16:01:02 [dsriedel]
dsriedel has joined #dnt
16:01:05 [Zakim]
16:01:14 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.637.aahh
16:01:21 [Zakim]
+ +49.721.83.aaii
16:01:25 [justin_]
zakim, aahh is justin_
16:01:25 [Zakim]
+justin_; got it
16:01:28 [dsriedel]
zakim, aaii is dsriedel
16:01:28 [Zakim]
+dsriedel; got it
16:01:29 [Zakim]
16:01:34 [dsriedel]
zakim, mute me
16:01:37 [Zakim]
dsriedel should now be muted
16:01:42 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaff is KevinT
16:01:42 [Zakim]
+KevinT; got it
16:01:43 [vincent]
zakim, ??P31 is vincent
16:01:43 [Zakim]
+vincent; got it
16:01:45 [Zakim]
16:01:46 [npdoty]
Zakim, aagg is amyc
16:01:48 [Zakim]
16:01:50 [dsinger]
zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:01:53 [Zakim]
+amyc; got it
16:01:58 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #DNT
16:02:03 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
16:02:09 [Zakim]
+ +1.207.619.aajj
16:02:13 [dsinger]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, BrendanIAB?, npdoty, efelten, ninjamarnau, [Microsoft], robsherman, Chris_IAB?, jchester2, +1.646.654.aaee, KevinT, amyc, [GVoice], justin_, dsriedel
16:02:19 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:02:22 [Zakim]
... (muted), vincent, bryan, [Apple], +1.207.619.aajj
16:02:26 [Zakim]
[Microsoft] has suegl
16:02:27 [eberkower]
eberkower has joined #dnt
16:02:28 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:02:44 [dwainberg]
zakim, aajj is dwainberg
16:02:44 [Zakim]
+dwainberg; got it
16:02:49 [Zakim]
16:02:54 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
16:02:59 [adrianba]
zakim, [microsoft.a] is me
16:02:59 [Zakim]
+adrianba; got it
16:03:00 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.349.aakk
16:03:05 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: KevinT (4%), [GVoice] (51%)
16:03:12 [WileyS]
zakim, aakk is WileyS
16:03:12 [Zakim]
+WileyS; got it
16:03:13 [Zakim]
+ +1.310.392.aall
16:03:14 [eberkower]
646 is eberkower
16:03:14 [justin_]
Saturday is good.
16:03:15 [npdoty]
Zakim, mute [GVoice]
16:03:15 [Zakim]
[GVoice] should now be muted
16:03:19 [Zakim]
16:03:23 [Simon]
Simon has joined #dnt
16:03:46 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaee is eberkower
16:03:46 [Zakim]
+eberkower; got it
16:03:53 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
16:03:58 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.517.aamm
16:04:01 [npdoty]
volunteers to scribe?
16:04:15 [AnnaLong]
AnnaLong has joined #dnt
16:04:20 [Zakim]
+ +1.678.580.aann
16:04:27 [johnsimpson]
zakim, 392aall is johnsimpson
16:04:29 [Zakim]
sorry, johnsimpson, I do not recognize a party named '392aall'
16:04:41 [Zakim]
16:04:44 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:04:45 [sidstamm]
Zakim, Mozilla has sidstamm
16:04:47 [Zakim]
+ +1.917.318.aaoo
16:04:50 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
16:04:53 [Zakim]
+sidstamm; got it
16:04:56 [johnsimpson]
zakim, aall is johnsimpson
16:04:56 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:04:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.201.723.aapp
16:05:01 [Zakim]
+johnsimpson; got it
16:05:08 [tedleung1]
tedleung1 has joined #dnt
16:05:10 [npdoty]
Zakim, aall is johnsimpson
16:05:10 [adrianba]
scribenick: adrianba
16:05:13 [Zakim]
sorry, npdoty, I do not recognize a party named 'aall'
16:05:18 [aleecia]
16:05:21 [susanisrael]
susanisrael joined from 201723 xxxx
16:05:22 [adrianba]
TOPIC: Review of overdue action items
16:05:23 [npdoty]
thx, adrianba
16:05:26 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.507.aaqq
16:05:31 [chapell]
chapell has joined #DNT
16:05:33 [npdoty]
Zakim, aapp is susanisrael
16:05:33 [Zakim]
+susanisrael; got it
16:05:43 [adrianba]
aleecia: the first few are from ian, who has not yet joined the call
16:05:50 [adrianba]
... next are from roy
16:05:55 [adrianba]
... also not yet here
16:05:55 [chapell]
zakim, 8440 is chapell
16:05:55 [Zakim]
sorry, chapell, I do not recognize a party named '8440'
16:05:58 [adrianba]
... next against me
16:06:02 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
Zakim, aaqq is ChrisPedigoOPA
16:06:02 [Zakim]
+ChrisPedigoOPA; got it
16:06:06 [adrianba]
... some are done but need to close out the actions
16:06:11 [hwest]
Apologies - I will be joining the call late or not at all as I deal with some crisis still here, but will try to follow on IRC
16:06:13 [adrianba]
16:06:13 [trackbot]
ACTION-210 -- Aleecia McDonald to come up with further text to get the consensus declared in this call around DNT and whether it can be set by default (no) in the spec -- due 2012-07-25 -- OPEN
16:06:13 [trackbot]
16:06:14 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.369.aarr
16:06:15 [Brooks]
Brooks has joined #dnt
16:06:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.609.981.aass
16:06:21 [adrianba]
aleecia: will do this by the end of the week
16:06:28 [tedleung1]
zakim, aarr is tedleung
16:06:28 [Zakim]
+tedleung; got it
16:06:33 [adrianba]
16:06:33 [trackbot]
ACTION-228 -- David Singer to update remove methods to have an appropriate failure mode -- due 2012-07-25 -- OPEN
16:06:33 [trackbot]
16:06:35 [aleecia]
16:06:45 [adrianba]
dsinger: in process but not done - working on the API at the moment
16:07:02 [Brooks]
Brooks Calling in on 678 580
16:07:07 [adrianba]
16:07:07 [trackbot]
ACTION-227 -- David Singer to collect input (from Tom, Jonathan, Ed, Rob) on needs for a service-provider flag and compare to current draft -- due 2012-07-25 -- OPEN
16:07:07 [trackbot]
16:07:09 [alex]
alex has joined #dnt
16:07:12 [adrianba]
dsinger: same here
16:07:18 [JC]
JC has joined #DNT
16:07:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.813.366.aatt
16:07:23 [adrianba]
aleecia: i will send email reminders
16:07:29 [aleecia]
16:07:30 [aleecia]
16:07:31 [aleecia]
16:07:31 [adrianba]
TOPIC: Any comments on minutes posted a week ago
16:07:32 [Zakim]
16:07:33 [aleecia]
16:07:34 [aleecia]
16:07:34 [aleecia]
16:07:38 [alex]
Zakim, aatt is alex
16:07:39 [Zakim]
+alex; got it
16:07:40 [adrianba]
aleecia: did anyone have comments on the minutes?
16:07:45 [adrianba]
... not seeing any comments
16:07:52 [adrianba]
TOPIC: Quick check that callers are identified
16:07:54 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:07:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, BrendanIAB?, npdoty, efelten, ninjamarnau, [Microsoft], robsherman, Chris_IAB?, jchester2, eberkower, KevinT, amyc, [GVoice] (muted), justin_, dsriedel
16:08:01 [Zakim]
... (muted), vincent, bryan, [Apple], dwainberg, adrianba, WileyS, johnsimpson, ??P50, +1.919.517.aamm, +1.678.580.aann, [Mozilla], +1.917.318.aaoo, susanisrael, ChrisPedigoOPA,
16:08:04 [Zakim]
... tedleung, +1.609.981.aass, alex, [Microsoft.a]
16:08:06 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:08:08 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:08:14 [Zakim]
[Microsoft] has suegl
16:08:33 [chapell]
zakim, 917 318 is chapell
16:08:37 [Zakim]
I don't understand '917 318 is chapell', chapell
16:08:40 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaoo is chapell
16:08:46 [npdoty]
Zakim, aamm is AnnaLong
16:08:47 [chapell]
thanks nick
16:08:48 [adrianba]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:08:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate adrianba
16:08:50 [Zakim]
+chapell; got it
16:08:51 [npdoty]
Zakim, aann is Brooks
16:08:55 [Zakim]
+AnnaLong; got it
16:08:56 [adrianba]
rrsagent, make logs public
16:08:59 [Zakim]
+Brooks; got it
16:09:26 [aleecia]
16:09:46 [aleecia]
16:09:46 [trackbot]
ISSUE-97 -- Re-direction, shortened URLs, click analytics -- what kind of tracking is this? -- open
16:09:46 [trackbot]
16:09:50 [jeffwilson]
jeffwilson has joined #dnt
16:09:55 [bilcorry]
bilcorry has joined #dnt
16:09:58 [aleecia]
16:10:02 [jmayer]
jmayer has joined #dnt
16:10:03 [adrianba]
TOPIC: We will work our way through a number of pending review texts, all of which have had ample time for people to read and reflect upon.
16:10:12 [aleecia]
5. A user visits Example Social and sees the language: "Check out this
16:10:12 [adrianba]
aleecia: following up on an action from Justin
16:10:13 [aleecia]
Example News article on cooking: sho.rt/1234". The user clicks the link
16:10:14 [aleecia]
which directs the user to a page operated by the company Example Sho.rt
16:10:16 [aleecia]
which then redirects the user to a page operated by Example News.
16:10:17 [aleecia]
Example Social and Example News and first parties, and Example Sho.rt is
16:10:19 [aleecia]
a third party.
16:10:20 [aleecia]
6. A user visits Example Social and sees a hyperlink reading: "Check out
16:10:22 [aleecia]
this Example News article on cooking." A user clicks the link which
16:10:23 [aleecia]
points to This page loads nothing but a frame
16:10:25 [aleecia]
which contains the cooking article from Example News, but all links are
16:10:26 [aleecia]
rewritten to pass through which is operated by Example
16:10:27 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.684.aauu
16:10:27 [aleecia]
Framing. Example Social and Example News are first parties and Example
16:10:28 [aleecia]
Framing is a third party.
16:10:29 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.265.aavv
16:10:40 [jmayer]
Zakim, aauu is jmayer
16:10:41 [Zakim]
+jmayer; got it
16:10:43 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.223.aaww
16:10:47 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.265.aaxx
16:10:51 [dwainberg]
16:10:56 [bilcorry]
Zakim, aaww is me
16:10:56 [Zakim]
+bilcorry; got it
16:11:03 [bilcorry]
Zakim, mute me
16:11:03 [Zakim]
bilcorry should now be muted
16:11:24 [cblouch]
cblouch has joined #dnt
16:11:37 [damiano_]
damiano_ has joined #dnt
16:11:44 [adrianba]
aleecia: let's talk about this - there's one more para at the end but let's start here
16:11:49 [adrianba]
... no objections on the mailing list
16:11:50 [damiano_]
I'm the one on google talk sorry
16:11:50 [aleecia]
16:11:58 [aleecia]
ack dwainberg
16:12:11 [jmayer]
David, stay on topic.
16:12:13 [adrianba]
dwainberg: want to reiterate my concerns about agenda timing
16:12:22 [robsherman]
Did we skip the F2F timing agenda item?
16:12:25 [adrianba]
... these are meaty issues - date from this posting is some time ago
16:12:32 [adrianba]
... we haven't had much time to prep
16:12:45 [adrianba]
aleecia: you're right - was behind on agenda
16:12:55 [adrianba]
... i think as we go through them it's possible to handle in real time
16:13:14 [adrianba]
... if you find things that you need more time for we can consider that but there has been time to discuss on the mailing list
16:13:27 [jmayer]
We've been thinking about URL shorteners and framing for well over six months.
16:13:27 [adrianba]
... agreed that 24 hours for agenda would be better but let's give it a shot
16:13:36 [samsilberman]
samsilberman has joined #dnt
16:13:41 [adrianba]
dwainberg: let's take time to discuss but not make decisions?
16:13:44 [tl]
I object to "not making decisions on calls".
16:13:47 [adrianba]
aleecia: not willing to do that
16:14:04 [adrianba]
... if there is text nobody has seen before then okay, say new text from editors
16:14:16 [adrianba]
... but for something that people have had time to go through then yes we can make decisions
16:14:25 [npdoty]
if there are cases where something is missed, can we follow up to decisions with objections on the mailing list?
16:14:29 [adrianba]
... we can look at specific issues but not as a general statement
16:14:35 [Zakim]
+ +1.781.472.aayy
16:14:36 [adrianba]
... let's move ahead on this
16:14:49 [jmayer]
obstruction |əbˈstrəkSHən, äb-| - noun - a thing that impedes or prevents passage or progress; an obstacle or blockage: the tractor hit an obstruction.
16:14:57 [aleecia]
16:14:59 [adrianba]
... there were no objections on the list - question for the group is if there are things missing that they didn't bring up before
16:15:05 [adrianba]
... not hearing anyone
16:15:08 [adrianba]
... one last para
16:15:13 [aleecia]
In some cases, web requests are redirected through intermediary domains,
16:15:14 [aleecia]
such as url shorteners or framing pages, before eventually delivering
16:15:15 [aleecia]
the content that the user was attempting to access. The operators of
16:15:16 [aleecia]
these intermediary domains are third parties, unless they are a common
16:15:17 [aleecia]
party to the operator of either the referring page or the eventual
16:15:18 [Chris_IAB]
agree with David; need ample time to review; just got the agenda last night
16:15:18 [aleecia]
landing page.
16:15:18 [samsilberman]
zakim, aayy is samsilberman
16:15:18 [Zakim]
+samsilberman; got it
16:15:29 [adrianba]
... fairly non-controversial
16:15:58 [adrianba]
aleecia: that's explaining what it is we're talking about
16:16:10 [adrianba]
... may need more time to be crisp but want to get a sense from people on the call
16:16:20 [adrianba]
... think it's straightforward
16:16:21 [Chris_IAB]
need additional time to review proposed language
16:16:25 [jmayer]
16:16:25 [npdoty]
support for the re-direct or intermediary being a third party, have we heard any objections to that?
16:16:30 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
16:16:39 [justin_]
Chris_IAB, You've had two months to review this language.
16:16:40 [adrianba]
jmayer: two thoughts
16:16:53 [adrianba]
... think new examples are helpful
16:16:58 [efelten]
Who are the people who called in just after we completed the identification-check? There were several. Some identified themselves, but others didn't.
16:17:06 [adrianba]
... still using user expectations as rough guidelines
16:17:10 [aleecia]
noted, Ed, thanks
16:17:10 [Chris_IAB]
but didn't know it was to be decided on today, until last night my time
16:17:20 [adrianba]
... since users don't expect to interact with link shorteners then in general they're not first parties
16:17:21 [justin_]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:17:21 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, BrendanIAB?, npdoty, efelten, ninjamarnau, [Microsoft], robsherman, Chris_IAB?, jchester2, eberkower, KevinT, amyc, [GVoice] (muted), justin_, dsriedel
16:17:25 [Zakim]
... (muted), vincent, bryan, [Apple], dwainberg, adrianba, WileyS, johnsimpson, ??P50, AnnaLong, Brooks, [Mozilla], chapell, susanisrael, ChrisPedigoOPA, tedleung, +1.609.981.aass,
16:17:25 [Zakim]
... alex, [Microsoft.a], jmayer, +1.703.265.aavv, bilcorry (muted), +1.703.265.aaxx, samsilberman
16:17:25 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:17:25 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:17:25 [Zakim]
[Microsoft] has suegl
16:17:41 [adrianba]
... when there is interaction then they would be
16:17:44 [BrendanIAB]
16:17:57 [adrianba]
... second, a link shortener could be explicit that collecting information is the purpose
16:18:04 [Chris_IAB]
justin_, how much of the things you read in the last 2-months are you ready to recall and decide on at the last minute-- let's not be rediculous
16:18:14 [alex]
16:18:21 [dwainberg]
16:18:32 [adrianba]
... i wouldn't object to adding third example that iwilltrack then we could add another example
16:18:33 [johnsimpson]
16:18:37 [WileyS]
A user is aware of the URL they are about to click on - its difficult to argue that party is not a 1st party due to URL construction. I agree with the general sentiment of moving redirectors to a 3rd party status but see the URL being an obvious issue with user expectation.
16:18:39 [adrianba]
aleecia: i'm hearing i wouldn't mind
16:18:51 [aleecia]
ack BrendanIAB
16:18:51 [WileyS]
16:18:52 [jmayer]
I thought we had consensus on the user expectations issue.
16:18:57 [adrianba]
brendan: i don'
16:19:08 [jmayer]
Not about party size, but about what's a first party vs. third party.
16:19:13 [WileyS]
URL structure appears to break the "user expectation" rule
16:19:24 [adrianba]
s/i don'/i don't see specific text about redirection - what about javascript and onload/
16:19:37 [adrianba]
aleecia: think this is supposed to be technology neutral
16:19:54 [adrianba]
brendan: in the javascript page the page is rendered and then the redirection happens
16:19:57 [WileyS]
If I'm about to click on a URL "" how do I argue that I didn't know I was about to visit ""?
16:20:02 [adrianba]
aleecia: justin did you have this in mind?
16:20:03 [jeffwilson]
Zakim, aaxx is me
16:20:03 [Zakim]
+jeffwilson; got it
16:20:08 [npdoty]
WileyS, you mean the user knew they were going to Example Sho.rt because they saw the http://sho.rt in the URL?
16:20:19 [adrianba]
justin: no, i copied most of the language from a previous proposal - not sure i understand
16:20:28 [WileyS]
Nick, correct - and had the choice to not go to "sho.rt" if they didn't want to.
16:20:28 [npdoty]
WileyS, I think a lot of links on the Web don't have the URL visible
16:20:38 [adrianba]
brendan: standard redirect is HTTP 302 - the browser just navigates on
16:20:40 [WileyS]
Its that basic premise that supports the 1st party argument.
16:21:00 [adrianba]
... the second case is a page that is delivered and then after the javascript changes the URL - you're interacting here as a first party
16:21:08 [WileyS]
All links on the internet are discoverable - easily set within the UA to make this visible (CRUCIAL for the detection of phishing sites)
16:21:10 [adrianba]
... difference is client-side vs. server-side
16:21:24 [adrianba]
... javascript isn't considered a redirect in the HTTP spec
16:21:32 [adrianba]
justin: what are you proposing?
16:21:40 [adrianba]
brendan: i'm not seeing any text for this
16:21:40 [npdoty]
"Check out <a href="http://sho.rt/abcd"></a>!"
16:21:52 [dsinger]
this is a nice question. does a page that achieves the re-direct through scripting or other client-side actions get to be a first-party as a result?
16:21:53 [adrianba]
justin: i tried to be tech neutral but we can add text if we need to
16:22:12 [WileyS]
Nick, hover over "" and you'll see it links to "http://sho.rt/abcd"
16:22:22 [johnsimpson]
16:22:26 [adrianba]
brendan: both have the same end result but in the client-side the client has the opportunity to render the page so technically interacting
16:22:57 [adrianba]
aleecia: sounds like so far no one is complaining about this text but different ways to expand - may need a new action to add more
16:23:00 [aleecia]
ack dwainberg
16:23:26 [adrianba]
dwainberg: first, haven't had much time to look at this - not participants when this language was proposed
16:23:32 [jmayer]
How is this broad?
16:23:36 [adrianba]
... concerned that it is broad and need more time to review
16:23:38 [jmayer]
It's one particular use case.
16:23:47 [adrianba]
... need to be narrowed to url shorteners and framing pages
16:23:54 [jmayer]
16:23:57 [adrianba]
... intermediaries text seems broad
16:23:58 [cblouch]
zakim, aaxx is cblouch
16:23:58 [Zakim]
sorry, cblouch, I do not recognize a party named 'aaxx'
16:24:00 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
16:24:09 [adrianba]
WileyS: i believe the issue is user expectation
16:24:18 [vincent]
WileyS, not sure we could expect that users will do that, especially if the anchor refer to a site name which is not the redirection service
16:24:22 [adrianba]
... anything not a first party becomes third party
16:24:33 [adrianba]
... user has opportunity to understand URL they navigate to
16:25:03 [dsinger]
hm, few users look at the details of URLs behind links...
16:25:06 [adrianba]
... if i'm about to click on link to or micro.soft/abcd i know one is a first party and in the other case i'm hitting third party doing redirection
16:25:11 [justin_]
16:25:27 [adrianba]
... perhaps the key issue is redirection rather than shorteners or framing environments - these are manifestations
16:25:29 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
16:25:37 [cblouch]
zakim, aavv is cblouch
16:25:37 [Zakim]
+cblouch; got it
16:25:38 [aleecia]
16:25:49 [justin_]
WileyS, I tried to address this issue with the last sentence: The operators of these intermediary domains are third parties, unless they are a common party to the operator of either the referring page or the eventual landing page.
16:26:00 [adrianba]
jmayer: i disagree - i think this is a clear violation of user expectations - users don't hover over links to see where they go
16:26:33 [adrianba]
... seems so straightforward that if a user clicks a link and there is chain of redirects most users won't understand and shouldn't have to
16:26:42 [WileyS]
JMayer - why don't user understand? What proof or research do you have?
16:26:44 [adrianba]
... i don't think this is just a redirect thing
16:26:58 [adrianba]
... think this misses discoverability
16:27:00 [aleecia]
ack justin_
16:27:01 [dsinger]
q+ to say maybe a first party has to 'present itself' to the user in order to become a first party? so any kind of 'silent intermediary' does not become so?
16:27:02 [npdoty]
WileyS, I think we all agree that they're examples of the more generic question of re-directions, the question was just whether the re-directing parties were third parties to the interaction?
16:27:35 [adrianba]
justin: trying to understand Shane's point - if micro.soft goes to microsoft think the language is okay
16:27:54 [adrianba]
... but if micro.soft goes to NY times then that might be different
16:27:54 [WileyS]
Agreed - the last sentence (with some work) can fit this situation.
16:28:09 [Zakim]
16:28:15 [adrianba]
... the language says the redirector is third party unless they are common with the destination
16:28:26 [adrianba]
WileyS: agreed - common party issue is addressed
16:28:28 [Zakim]
16:28:28 [aleecia]
"The operators of
16:28:29 [aleecia]
these intermediary domains are third parties, unless they are a common
16:28:30 [aleecia]
party to the operator of either the referring page or the eventual
16:28:31 [aleecia]
landing page."
16:28:57 [justin_]
16:28:58 [adrianba]
... trying to also cover for where party injecting shortener bears some cost and putting them into third party may cause negative monetary pressure
16:29:09 [adrianba]
... struggling with wholesale throwing them into third party
16:29:12 [jmayer]
16:29:19 [adrianba]
... disagree with jmayer that people do look
16:29:25 [jmayer]
Shane, I agree it's "discoverable
16:29:25 [adrianba]
... not everyone blindly clicks
16:29:38 [adrianba]
... would like time to research internally - we do have a shortener that we use
16:29:56 [adrianba]
... trying to understand if this would destroy some of our uses
16:29:58 [dwainberg]
Do we need to distinguish between the sender of the shortened URL vs the recipient?
16:30:00 [jmayer]
Shane, I agree it's "discoverable" - but that's not the test. It's user expectations. Moving to "discoverable" would blow away the first party vs. third party divide.
16:30:07 [amyc]
amyc has joined #dnt
16:30:08 [adrianba]
... first party might still want the data
16:30:19 [jchester2]
But the consumer wouldn't want their data collected if they have sent DNT
16:30:32 [adrianba]
... if yahoo had shortener in mobile space sounds like jmayer's view is this would be third party
16:30:33 [jmayer]
I'm also, on reflection, not entirely comfortable with treating the referring site as a first party.
16:30:45 [aleecia]
16:30:46 [adrianba]
... definitely agree the same party case is covered - can improve the language
16:30:49 [aleecia]
ack dsinger
16:30:49 [Zakim]
dsinger, you wanted to say maybe a first party has to 'present itself' to the user in order to become a first party? so any kind of 'silent intermediary' does not become so?
16:30:51 [adrianba]
aleecia: pretty close on this
16:30:55 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
16:31:06 [adrianba]
dsinger: clear that definition of first party is something user realises interacts with
16:31:10 [WileyS]
Jmayer, 1st party definition is already hinged on "discoverable"
16:31:25 [adrianba]
... silent site that the user is unaware of probably doesn't count as first party
16:31:37 [adrianba]
... this is question of site normally third party becoming first party
16:31:38 [Zakim]
+ +49.172.147.aazz
16:31:50 [adrianba]
... not banishing site to third party - determining if it is becoming first party
16:31:50 [schunter]
Zakim, aazz is schunter
16:31:50 [Zakim]
+schunter; got it
16:31:58 [BrendanIAB]
case: I own a URL shortener. I have a Twitter account. I use my URL shortener in my Twitter post to link to a NYT article. Is the URL shortener a 3rd party?
16:31:59 [adrianba]
... think we can talk about evident first parties
16:32:13 [aleecia]
ack justin_
16:32:14 [adrianba]
aleecia: i thought that - we could add text to be clearer
16:32:33 [adrianba]
justin: if someone on yahoo uses yahoo shortener to go to NYtimes then that's okay as first party
16:32:49 [Zakim]
16:32:49 [adrianba]
... but if it is then see Shane is saying there is a problem with monetisation
16:32:56 [adrianba]
... have a problem saying that is first party
16:33:06 [adrianba]
... but do get the idea that people aren't happy with that
16:33:06 [jmayer]
Shane, the size of a party is determined by discoverable + affiliation. That's different from whether a party's a first party or a third party - where we agreed to user expectations.
16:33:08 [aleecia]
16:33:13 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
16:33:34 [WileyS]
Jmayer, agreed - so the referring site would fit that rule.
16:33:36 [npdoty]
WileyS, in addition to the internal re-direction service, you also raised a question about monetization of third party URL shorteners -- do you think we would need to remove this third-party status altogether to cover that case?
16:33:46 [adrianba]
jmayer: refering site collecting destination - my concern is in many cases this could violate user expectations
16:33:48 [rvaneijk]
rvaneijk has joined #dnt
16:34:04 [WileyS]
Nick, need more time to figure out how redirectors make money to support the services they provide seemingly for free today.
16:34:26 [adrianba]
... reading a news article and clicking on a source - one web site is learning something about what a user is doing on another site
16:34:28 [Zakim]
+ +31.65.141.bbaa
16:34:29 [tl]
WileyS: Not sure even they know that one...
16:34:36 [rvaneijk]
zakim, bbaa is me
16:34:36 [Zakim]
+rvaneijk; got it
16:34:43 [adrianba]
... so the refering is a different case rather than where there is a landing page
16:34:43 [WileyS]
Nick, We could inadvertantly kill the redirection market without looking at this more closely.
16:34:48 [jchester2]
Shane: Can you also add to this research what data is collected by redirectors and what is sold, monetized, etc.
16:35:07 [adrianba]
... user expectations is often who does the user expect to be talking to but it's also what are they sending to whom
16:35:10 [aleecia]
16:35:14 [WileyS]
Jeff - yes, want to know these items myself.
16:35:19 [adrianba]
... not clear users expect to be sending info about where they are going to
16:35:28 [WileyS]
Tl - agreed, but hopefully someone knows. :-)
16:35:32 [justin_]
And tl at one point . . .
16:35:52 [adrianba]
aleecia: think this was worked on by david and justin - they are agreeing with Shane that not expecting to affect single first party but text not as clear as it could be (and tom)
16:36:10 [BrendanIAB]
Outbound link tracking - if I click on a link that goes through a link shortener vs if I click on a link that redirects through a same origin as the site I'm interacting with?
16:36:13 [justin_]
And we'll try to address BrendanIAB's point too.
16:36:15 [adrianba]
... does anyone object to david and justin working to add one more sentence in a couple of days - throw this open until monday
16:36:19 [jmayer]
Could you explain this one point?
16:36:22 [npdoty]
it sounds like WileyS might have an objection if it affects a certain revenue model?
16:36:24 [adrianba]
... maybe work with Shane to ensure this is handled
16:36:28 [jmayer]
16:36:45 [WileyS]
16:36:49 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
16:37:10 [adrianba]
aleecia: editing action for due date to monday and note that we are looking for one more sentence from justin and david to cover first party case
16:37:12 [aleecia]
16:37:34 [dsinger]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:37:34 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, BrendanIAB?, npdoty, efelten, ninjamarnau, [Microsoft], robsherman, Chris_IAB?, jchester2, eberkower, KevinT, [GVoice] (muted), justin_, dsriedel
16:37:37 [adrianba]
TOPIC: Discussion of face-to-face meeting
16:37:37 [Zakim]
... (muted), vincent, bryan, [Apple], adrianba, WileyS, johnsimpson, ??P50, AnnaLong, Brooks, [Mozilla], chapell, susanisrael, ChrisPedigoOPA, tedleung, +1.609.981.aass, alex,
16:37:37 [Zakim]
... [Microsoft.a], jmayer, cblouch, bilcorry (muted), jeffwilson, samsilberman, [Microsoft.aa], schunter, rvaneijk
16:37:37 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:37:37 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:37:38 [Zakim]
[Microsoft] has suegl
16:37:43 [johnsimpson]
zakim, who is on call?
16:37:43 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, johnsimpson.
16:37:52 [jmayer]
If the point is that a URL shortener is first party if it's provided by the first party and linking to the first party, I think we definitely have agreement there.
16:37:55 [WileyS]
How many people do we lose with Yom Kippur?
16:38:00 [johnsimpson]
zakim, who is on phone
16:38:00 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on phone', johnsimpson
16:38:02 [adrianba]
aleecia: jewish holiday during the time we picked
16:38:13 [jmayer]
If the point is that a URL shortener is first party if it's provided by the first party, we don't have agreement.
16:38:21 [adrianba]
... had a couple of personal messages on this that such things shouldn't come to a vote
16:38:43 [adrianba]
... the problem is that this is when room is available - haven't been successful in finding another room
16:38:50 [adrianba]
... please hold off booking travel for now
16:38:53 [henryg]
henryg has joined #dnt
16:39:00 [adrianba]
... looking for more options and will get back to you on monday
16:39:03 [Chris_IAB]
whoa, already booked and paid for travel
16:39:05 [Zakim]
16:39:06 [adrianba]
... comments?
16:39:12 [jchester2]
Let's meet in Brussels and have the EU supply the room
16:39:16 [Chapell]
me too
16:39:19 [dsinger]
zakim, who is making noise?
16:39:26 [Zakim]
16:39:27 [adrianba]
aleecia: know a couple of people have booked travel
16:39:30 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: alex (14%)
16:39:47 [adrianba]
... this isn't straightforward - we're going to see if we have options - if you have not yet booked please don't
16:39:53 [adrianba]
... apologies for confusion
16:39:54 [WileyS]
Jmayer, I agree its not that simple. But if the owner of the shorter uses that in their 1st party context, I believe the shortner (redirector) should be considered 1st party in that context.
16:39:57 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:39:57 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aleecia, BrendanIAB?, npdoty, efelten, ninjamarnau, [Microsoft], robsherman, Chris_IAB?, jchester2, eberkower, KevinT, [GVoice] (muted), justin_, dsriedel
16:40:01 [Zakim]
... (muted), vincent, [Apple], adrianba, WileyS, johnsimpson, ??P50, AnnaLong, Brooks, [Mozilla], chapell, susanisrael, ChrisPedigoOPA, tedleung, +1.609.981.aass, alex,
16:40:01 [Zakim]
... [Microsoft.a], jmayer, cblouch, bilcorry (muted), jeffwilson, samsilberman, [Microsoft.aa], schunter, rvaneijk, dwainberg
16:40:01 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:40:01 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:40:01 [Zakim]
[Microsoft] has suegl
16:40:04 [Zakim]
+ +1.508.655.bbbb
16:40:06 [WileyS]
16:40:19 [tl]
zakim, aass is tl
16:40:19 [Zakim]
+tl; got it
16:40:30 [tl]
And, Zakim, how long have you known me?
16:40:42 [tl]
I'm hurt, truly hurt.
16:40:43 [johnsimpson]
I'll need to leave call in a few minutes
16:40:45 [WileyS]
Aleecia, ETA on decision?
16:40:54 [WileyS]
16:41:10 [npdoty]
Zakim, bbbb is HenryGoldstein
16:41:10 [Zakim]
+HenryGoldstein; got it
16:41:16 [npdoty]
Zakim, drop [GVoice]
16:41:16 [Zakim]
[GVoice] is being disconnected
16:41:17 [damiano_]
damiano fusco, the nielsen company. Not sure what my phone is i'm using google talk
16:41:18 [Zakim]
16:41:22 [npdoty]
Zakim, drop ??P50
16:41:22 [Zakim]
??P50 is being disconnected
16:41:24 [Zakim]
16:41:24 [WileyS]
Aleecia, thank you.
16:41:31 [Zakim]
16:41:35 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has left #dnt
16:41:42 [adrianba]
aleecia: by monday of next week will have a decision - if someone has space in europe they can volunteer please get in touch with nick
16:41:51 [adrianba]
TOPIC: Discussion of how we move forward on permitted uses
16:42:00 [adrianba]
aleecia: great progress in Seattle on permitted uses
16:42:10 [Zakim]
16:42:10 [damiano_]
16:42:14 [adrianba]
... now spending some time talking about SOX compliance
16:42:21 [adrianba]
... trying to get some auditors to review
16:42:22 [npdoty]
Zakim, [GVoice] is damiano_
16:42:22 [Zakim]
+damiano_; got it
16:42:36 [adrianba]
... is there any other information people think we need that we don't have in the group
16:42:42 [WileyS]
Aleecia, we'll need representatives from every legal juristiction in the world if you're using that as guiding point for the Financial Permitted Use
16:42:44 [adrianba]
... please let me know
16:42:45 [dsinger]
zakim, who is making noise?
16:42:47 [Zakim]
16:42:57 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (14%), aleecia (84%), jchester2 (24%), Brooks (7%)
16:43:16 [adrianba]
aleecia: we've discuss a lot of these issues for a year - we are getting to the point where we will have final text
16:43:26 [dwainberg]
I don't see why we need info on SOX -- there's always going to be a "legally required" exception, yes?
16:43:27 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
16:43:32 [adrianba]
... and if we can't agree the text will come to the chairs to figure out the least objectionable text
16:43:40 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (12%), aleecia (91%)
16:43:40 [Brooks]
I am muted at the telphone level
16:43:45 [Zakim]
16:44:20 [adrianba]
TOPIC: Third parties should be prohibited from acting or representing themselves as first parties
16:44:25 [adrianba]
16:44:25 [trackbot]
ACTION-116 -- Thomas Lowenthal to draft text prohibitng third parties from acting or representing themselves as first parties -- due 2012-03-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW
16:44:25 [trackbot]
16:44:29 [aleecia]
16:44:39 [adrianba]
aleecia: should be fairly straightforward
16:45:07 [WileyS]
"knowingly represent" seems more fair
16:45:20 [adrianba]
aleecia: that seems fine
16:45:23 [jmayer]
"or with reason to know"
16:45:24 [adrianba]
... any other comments?
16:45:29 [dsinger]
"for example, by …"
16:45:34 [jmayer]
Ignorance shouldn't be an excuse.
16:45:40 [aleecia]
David speaking
16:45:41 [tl]
16:45:42 [npdoty]
do we need clarity about service providers?
16:45:48 [adrianba]
dsinger: trying to think, people will have questions about how to do that
16:45:49 [aleecia]
ack tl
16:45:56 [adrianba]
tl: think the example is right in there
16:46:02 [dwainberg]
16:46:10 [dwainberg]
16:46:15 [aleecia]
16:46:16 [WileyS]
Agreed, Service Providers will need to do this.
16:46:19 [adrianba]
... specific case was a 3rd party might send 1st party response header and that was previously not prohibited and this makes it prohibited
16:46:26 [dwainberg]
16:46:38 [Zakim]
16:46:41 [aleecia]
ack dwainberg
16:46:42 [adrianba]
aleecia: any objections to "knowingly represent"
16:46:52 [adrianba]
dwainberg: not a ton of time to think about this
16:47:07 [adrianba]
... if concern is narrowly about headers and responses then we should link it to that
16:47:13 [adrianba]
... right now it is broad
16:47:19 [jmayer]
Once again, there's nothing broad here.
16:47:24 [adrianba]
... i don't know what the standard is for falsely representing
16:47:29 [jmayer]
If you're a third party, don't tell users you're a first party.
16:47:30 [adrianba]
... not sure what all the contexts are
16:47:37 [adrianba]
... should narrow to this
16:47:44 [tlr]
tlr has joined #dnt
16:47:47 [adrianba]
aleecia: when is it okay for 3rd party to say it is 1st party?
16:48:12 [adrianba]
dwainberg: think there is a case where someone might need to be represented as first party and this might cause a problem for that
16:48:18 [adrianba]
... thinking outside header and response
16:48:36 [adrianba]
aleecia: for example a privacy policy, which could be many formats
16:48:45 [WileyS]
Aleecia, Service Providers can say they are a 1st party. An affiliated site, while technically a 3rd party from a domain perspective, can also say they are a 1st party.
16:48:47 [susanisrael]
I don't understand the comments from nick and shane about service providers. Can you explain the concern?
16:48:51 [adrianba]
dwainberg: could be some interstitial, or an interface to request consent
16:49:08 [tl]
16:49:09 [WileyS]
16:49:09 [efelten]
Doesn't "knowingly" help with David's issue?
16:49:12 [adrianba]
aleecia: trying to understand why it would ever be okay for 3rd party to say it is a 1st party
16:49:22 [adrianba]
dwainberg: not saying that - think the text is unclear
16:49:31 [aleecia]
ack tl
16:49:31 [adrianba]
... falsely represent is not a clear standard
16:49:59 [npdoty]
efelten also proposes that "knowingly" might help dwainberg; dwainberg, does that help?
16:50:11 [adrianba]
tl: i find this objection pretty shocking - the language is clear - don't falsely represent yourself as a first party if you're a third party
16:50:18 [adrianba]
... it's not supposed to say how
16:50:35 [adrianba]
dwainberg: part of the problem is that first or third parties are not going to say which they are
16:50:40 [npdoty]
"knowingly" might help dwainberg's concern if it's about uncertainty
16:50:53 [adrianba]
... sometimes more vague signals such as logos or language
16:50:58 [jmayer]
16:51:12 [adrianba]
... to avoid the problem, remember this is text for lawyers, we need to be clear what we're getting at
16:51:31 [eberkower]
Perhaps it would help to add the word "knowingly"?
16:51:35 [adrianba]
... this raises a flag as kind of vague because it doesn't give enough guidance to avoid running afoul of this
16:51:43 [adrianba]
... agree misrepresenting should not be allowed
16:51:46 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
16:51:59 [adrianba]
WileyS: i think with knowingly we get out of the accidental
16:52:09 [adrianba]
... agree with jmayer that ignorance shouldn't be a valid out
16:52:18 [dwainberg]
"knowingly" and "intentionally"?
16:52:32 [dwainberg]
not sure…I'll need to think about it further
16:52:35 [adrianba]
... but truly not knowing technically such as iframe'd content where you honestly think you're always a first party
16:52:53 [adrianba]
... service providers is one case and so is affiliated domains
16:53:01 [tl]
As we discussed in Seattle, service providers should not claim to be first parties.
16:53:18 [adrianba]
... truly trying to go after bad actors here
16:53:29 [adrianba]
... wanted to give some examples where third party will respond as first party
16:53:35 [adrianba]
aleecia: don't think those cases are covered here
16:53:44 [adrianba]
... service providers not considered 3rd parties
16:53:51 [adrianba]
... not 1st either - they are service providers
16:53:59 [adrianba]
... could add language to exclude service providers
16:54:05 [adrianba]
... domain names shouldn't be an issue
16:54:13 [susanisrael]
ok, i understand the point about service providers now.
16:54:19 [npdoty]
when editors integrate this text, they'll need to make it fit in with the text on service providers in any case
16:54:23 [aleecia]
16:54:26 [jmayer]
16:54:29 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
16:55:04 [adrianba]
aleecia: suggestion to add couple of different modifiers - knowingly or intentionly
16:55:11 [adrianba]
... intention seems difficult to get at
16:55:14 [jmayer]
I haven't heard anyone agree with David, so no need to consume the group's time.
16:55:20 [Zakim]
16:55:22 [adrianba]
... knowingly also difficult but maybe easier
16:55:25 [dsinger]
16:55:29 [tl]
I see no need for a change to this text.
16:55:39 [aleecia]
ack dsinger
16:55:58 [adrianba]
dsinger: in protocols there is usually a blanket rule you don't state falsehoods - seem to picking on a particular area here
16:56:16 [adrianba]
... do we need to say this as a more general statement - you must state the truth about who you are
16:56:22 [adrianba]
aleecia: is there standard language for this?
16:56:31 [adrianba]
dsinger: don't think this is something people usually talk about
16:56:36 [WileyS]
T1, I disagree. Any first party that has their content hijacked will be breaking this rule.
16:56:38 [adrianba]
aleecia: in this case we appear to
16:56:39 [tl]
Matthias objected to putting that content in the DNT doc, and suggest it be added to the TCS instead. That is the reason for this text.
16:56:40 [amyc]
why do we need to address?
16:56:48 [amyc]
16:56:53 [amyc]
16:56:54 [npdoty]
can we suggest that the editors add this to the draft and they can see how best to integrate it (regarding fitting in with service providers, and whether it's part of a more general section)?
16:56:55 [Chris_IAB]
Agree with David Singer; this is enforceable by local authorities, without the need for further clarification
16:56:59 [adrianba]
... we don't currently have any text that says if you are X you must represent yourself as X
16:57:02 [aleecia]
ack amyc
16:57:32 [adrianba]
amyc: i think it's interesting that this isn't used in other protocols - wondering if we need to focus on this specific part
16:57:59 [adrianba]
... think we're defining the parties in each transaction and we can evaluate them objectively
16:58:12 [adrianba]
... okay with shane's proposal but don't know why we're spending time on this
16:58:18 [dsinger]
we also say that that the UA can't lie and say the user wanted DNT when they have not asked the user; we also say that you can't say I'm not tracking, and go ahead and track; and so on...
16:58:18 [adrianba]
aleecia: is this harmful?
16:58:23 [adrianba]
amyc: if it takes time away from this
16:58:28 [tl]
Let's have more language prohibiting other lies too!
16:58:35 [adrianba]
dsinger: implication that if we ban lying here it's okay to lie in other places
16:58:38 [WileyS]
t1, LOL - NO!
16:59:04 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
16:59:08 [adrianba]
aleecia: two viewpoints: we should be silent vs. we should adopt this or something like it
16:59:11 [dsinger]
zakim, who is making noise?
16:59:15 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: aleecia (9%), [Mozilla] (81%), susanisrael (4%)
16:59:19 [Zakim]
16:59:28 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Microsoft.aa] (18%), aleecia (79%)
16:59:41 [WileyS]
16:59:42 [Chris_IAB]
16:59:43 [tl]
16:59:43 [dwainberg]
16:59:44 [jmayer]
16:59:45 [JC]
16:59:46 [jmayer]
16:59:46 [Brooks]
16:59:47 [jmayer]
16:59:47 [jchester2]
16:59:48 [adrianba]
aleecia: please +1 if this is a loophole we need to close or -1 if we should not address at all
16:59:49 [adrianba]
16:59:49 [amyc]
16:59:51 [ninjamarnau]
16:59:52 [robsherman]
-1. I wonder if the gap that Aleecia and others identified is reflected by the fact that the TPE provides a header response but doesn't specifically say that if you give a response it has to be consistent with the first/third party definitions. If that's right, can we just fix that gap?
16:59:53 [rvaneijk]
17:00:08 [WileyS]
8 to 5 (-1s have it)
17:00:10 [susanisrael]
17:00:13 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
17:00:13 [justin_]
17:00:15 [Simon]
17:00:15 [WileyS]
9 to 5
17:00:18 [adrianba]
aleecia: interesting - few people participating
17:00:19 [samsilberman]
17:00:21 [eberkower]
17:00:24 [Chapell]
17:00:31 [WileyS]
11 to 5 (3 obstain)
17:00:36 [adrianba]
aleecia: what's 0?
17:00:45 [eberkower]
17:00:48 [adrianba]
justin: both are justifiable - doesn't matter - happy either way
17:00:51 [Chapell]
17:00:55 [Chris_IAB]
effectively a 0 = status quo then
17:01:02 [WileyS]
Final: 11 to 5 (4 obstain)
17:01:14 [jmayer]
17:01:16 [adrianba]
aleecia: most say don't need text explicitly on this
17:01:26 [dsriedel]
17:01:47 [adrianba]
aleecia: of those saying we need text, is there anyone who can't live with "of course you can't lie" - i.e. having no text
17:01:50 [tl]
17:01:55 [aleecia]
ack tl
17:02:00 [Zakim]
17:02:04 [WileyS]
Updated Final: 12 to 5 (4 obstain)
17:02:05 [susanisrael]
i'm kind of a zero too as long as the language is more precise. I am hearing david's concern as more of a lawyer's perspective on precise drafting than an advocacy for lying.
17:02:09 [Chris_IAB]
not necessary
17:02:10 [adrianba]
tl: if we all think obviously we can't lie then shouldn't be a problem with saying it
17:02:13 [efelten]
Looks like at least 25 people abstained
17:02:35 [Chris_IAB]
all such standards depend on voluntary adherence
17:02:37 [jmayer]
17:02:46 [adrianba]
aleecia: trouble was trying to phrase it without suggesting can lie in other areas or for companies that don't realise they got it wrong for no fault of their own
17:02:47 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
17:02:48 [WileyS]
Ed, true, I should capture the 4 "0"s as something other than an abstain
17:02:57 [justin_]
Companies can already get in trouble for accidental lies under at least US law.
17:02:59 [adrianba]
jmayer: can't we address this explicitly too
17:03:08 [adrianba]
... say other lying isn't also okay
17:03:29 [adrianba]
aleecia: anyone who can't live with counter suggestion - actually text already says this
17:03:42 [adrianba]
... jmayer, can you suggest other text
17:03:42 [Chris_IAB]
make the rule in the affirmative and the negative is not required
17:03:48 [adrianba]
jmayer: will think of something and type in
17:04:01 [robsherman]
17:04:19 [JC]
17:04:25 [adrianba]
Chris_IAB: anyone adhering to the standard has to adhere to the standard - it's not necessary to say you're doing it and you're not going to lie about it
17:04:29 [tl]
"It it PROHIBITED send a signal described in the TPE doc which is deceptive."
17:04:34 [adrianba]
... if you choose to lie it doesn't matter what it says in the standard
17:04:40 [aleecia]
ack robsherman
17:04:53 [adrianba]
robsherman: we already have laws that say can't lie to consumers - don't need to include in spec
17:05:10 [npdoty]
if we all agree about the requirement and the question is just whether we need this text in the spec, we could just leave it up to the editors?
17:05:17 [aleecia]
17:05:18 [adrianba]
... main concern heard is that TPE doesn't say you have to correctly state 1st or 3rd party
17:05:21 [tl]
17:05:25 [aleecia]
ack tl
17:05:35 [adrianba]
tl: pasted text counter proposal
17:05:48 [WileyS]
17:05:50 [adrianba]
aleecia: anyone who would object to that
17:05:53 [WileyS]
No need to state this...
17:05:54 [Chris_IAB]
object to the need for this language
17:05:59 [dwainberg]
17:06:05 [adrianba]
WileyS: core argument - why do we need to state this?
17:06:08 [jmayer]
"This section is not intended to allow or prohibit any practices other than those explicitly addressed."
17:06:09 [jmayer]
17:06:19 [adrianba]
... if you state your compliant then you are following it
17:06:34 [adrianba]
... if someone sends an untrue signal then already not following spec
17:06:39 [adrianba]
... this text doesn't change that
17:06:45 [efelten]
Would this text change the meaning of the spec, or not?
17:06:52 [justin_]
Are deceptive business practices prohibited in the EU?
17:06:56 [adrianba]
... my concern more on unintended consequences
17:07:20 [adrianba]
...wasteful language and we're all trying to have straightforward text
17:07:24 [jmayer]
efelten, it would. Third parties are substantively prohibited from acting as first parties. But the rest of the spec doesn't address what a party claims to be.
17:07:25 [rvaneijk]
@justin, yes, but this is outside data protection legislation
17:07:28 [WileyS]
Aleecia, agreed
17:07:34 [adrianba]
aleecia: seems like already covered by party definitions
17:07:51 [adrianba]
... says what a company reasonable expects what is going on - what is different here?
17:08:03 [WileyS]
The spec already covers this topic - this is unneeded additional text.
17:08:22 [adrianba]
aleecia: question from ed - would text change meaning of spec?
17:08:24 [adrianba]
... hearing both
17:08:26 [WileyS]
You already had a vote on this and the group overwhelmingly (13 to 5) agreed this text should NOT be added
17:08:39 [WileyS]
Straw vote - apologies.
17:08:39 [efelten]
If it doesn't change the meaning, then it seems like a clarification. It it does change the meaning, then we should discuss whether to make that change.
17:08:46 [adrianba]
aleecia: straw poll not a vote - trying to understand intensity of disagreement
17:08:48 [tl]
WileyS: We operate by consensus.
17:08:56 [Chris_IAB]
intense on this side-- can't live with it
17:08:57 [adrianba]
... if people have a preference but can live with the other approach
17:09:15 [WileyS]
tl, remember that point :-)
17:09:19 [justin_]
rvaneijk, Right, so DPAs couldn't bring a case based on deception? Though would they be able to bring an enforcement action just based on violating a technical spec? Or does it depend on jurisdiction at this point?
17:09:26 [Chris_IAB]
they just changed the semantics...
17:09:33 [adrianba]
... asked if can't live with no text - counter proposal suggested
17:09:44 [WileyS]
Inadvertant consequence
17:09:50 [aleecia]
17:09:51 [adrianba]
... now asking can people live with this statement
17:09:57 [rvaneijk]
@justin, depends on local jurisdiction. In NL we have civil law.
17:10:04 [aleecia]
ack dwainberg
17:10:16 [robsherman]
17:10:27 [adrianba]
dwainberg: agree with sentiment don't want deception - language is either redundant or creates new standard at w3c for deceptive
17:10:40 [adrianba]
aleecia: how does this create new standard for w3c?
17:10:52 [efelten]
Question to people who can't live with this: How does it change the meaning of the spec?
17:10:55 [WileyS]
Was is the legal defintion of "deceptive" in Korea? In Japan? In Italy?
17:11:02 [adrianba]
dwainberg: to put in a spec a party must not do something that is deceptive - what is the standard for deceptive
17:11:09 [WileyS]
Its a legally loaded term - that's the concern here.
17:11:10 [adrianba]
... decades of case law on meaning of deceptive
17:11:17 [adrianba]
... are we including that by reference
17:11:20 [npdoty]
are tl, jmayer comfortable with existing regulations against deception covering the common sentiment?
17:11:26 [aleecia]
"falsely represent themselves as a first party"
17:11:27 [rvaneijk]
@justin: the obligation to inform is an important data protection principle however..
17:11:30 [aleecia]
17:11:33 [adrianba]
... don't know how that will work - adds risk to parties trying to be compliant with standard
17:11:38 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
17:11:46 [tl]
If we can't use any language which has actual meaning and consequence because lawyers don't understand what it means, then we have a real problem.
17:11:53 [adrianba]
jmayer: now we have agreement that changes what text says
17:11:54 [efelten]
The word "deceptive" does not appear in the proposed language (in any form).
17:12:00 [Chris_IAB]
if you want parties to voluntarily comply with this standard, you should probably stay away from legally loaded terms like this
17:12:06 [adrianba]
... current text prohibits 3rd party acting as 1st party
17:12:11 [WileyS]
Ed, its in the offered up revision (look higher up in the IRC chat)
17:12:15 [justin_]
rvaneijk, Right, so it should be a transparency/notice violation under existing data protection law under either iteration.
17:12:27 [adrianba]
... what spec doesn't say is what a 3rd party sends when acting in a certain way
17:12:35 [Chris_IAB]
just define 1st party and 3rd party FOR THIS SPEC, and we are done with this
17:12:44 [JC]
That language should be fixed then
17:12:45 [Chris_IAB]
make the definitions clear
17:12:46 [adrianba]
... would not be a violation for third party to be a third party but say it is a first party
17:12:51 [Chris_IAB]
that's working in the affirmative
17:12:53 [amyc]
not sure I understand
17:12:56 [adrianba]
... no doubt we're changing the substance of the spec
17:13:09 [dsinger]
q+ to agree with Rob that we need the TPE to say that the response header and well-known resource 'reflect the party's status and behavior'
17:13:29 [adrianba]
... as to the legal implications, that will vary, in the US the FTC might already give you most of this if not all
17:13:35 [adrianba]
... even without the language
17:13:53 [Chris_IAB]
How many attorneys do we have on the call today? Jurisdiction of practice?
17:14:06 [dsriedel]
If the standard is specified technically in a decent manner, a first party and its contracted third parties, working in "silo"mode, have an easy time to make their status transparent while a deceptive third party would have a hard time. Especially when audits or clever browsers investigate "DNT complaint" parties.
17:14:07 [adrianba]
... might not be deceptive just because of this spec- think this does change legal enforcement in some countries
17:14:12 [WileyS]
+1 DSinger - sounds like a better path "'knowingly' reflect the party's status and behavior"
17:14:13 [aleecia]
ack robsherman
17:14:13 [tl]
dsinger, as in "The communications described in the TPE MUST accurately represent the party's status and behavior." ?
17:14:32 [adrianba]
robsherman: question is this is new language that there is not precedent for
17:14:40 [adrianba]
... so can discuss if this changes a practice
17:14:49 [adrianba]
... we don't know how this will be interpreted later
17:14:51 [dsriedel]
So maybe this is also something a first party should be able to within this standard to have at least some control about its status and the status of its partners.
17:14:57 [justin_]
17:14:57 [adrianba]
... if we don't need it then we should have it
17:15:10 [adrianba]
... if we have specific cases we should just address those
17:15:13 [jmayer]
Rob, there is specific behavior we're concerned about: a third party claiming it's a first party.
17:15:17 [dsinger]
tl: maybe. you can 'under-act' (it's true you are a first party, but you do less tracking than many thirds)
17:15:18 [efelten]
From the HTTP 1.1 standard: Since the protocol version indicates the protocol capability of the sender, a proxy/gateway MUST NOT send a message with a version indicator which is greater than its actual version
17:15:27 [adrianba]
... favour minimalism here because it gets hard to structure language
17:15:29 [efelten]
(took ten seconds to find that one)
17:15:39 [adrianba]
... and difficult to know how regulators will interpret that language
17:15:45 [aleecia]
ack dsinger
17:15:45 [Zakim]
dsinger, you wanted to agree with Rob that we need the TPE to say that the response header and well-known resource 'reflect the party's status and behavior'
17:16:01 [Chris_IAB]
let's keep it to a technical specification: define what is a 1st and 3rd party, specifically, for this spec
17:16:05 [rvaneijk]
@Robsherman: lying is not allowed, not telling the whole truth is a different thing
17:16:11 [adrianba]
dsinger: can we just edit the TPE doc to say what you claim in your header or well known resource must reflect your status
17:16:14 [justin_]
Which would mirror the language that efelten just sent around.
17:16:17 [WileyS]
"your actual status" - so if a 1st party's content is hijacked they are non-compliant?
17:16:20 [adrianba]
aleecia: would you take an action to write that?
17:16:27 [adrianba]
dsinger: sure, if the group wants that to happen
17:16:38 [adrianba]
aleecia: think text will be useful and won't take long
17:16:50 [adrianba]
... let's look at that approach vs. what we currently have and go from there
17:16:54 [adrianba]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:16:54 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate adrianba
17:17:14 [justin_]
dsinger, Take note of the HTTP 1.1 language that efelten pasted above.
17:17:38 [adrianba]
aleecia: we'll take another look with text from david
17:17:48 [npdoty]
action: singer to draft very short text in TPE about representing party status
17:17:48 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-233 - Draft very short text in TPE about representing party status [on David Singer - due 2012-08-08].
17:17:50 [aleecia]
Third party as first party - is a third party that collects data on behalf of the first party treated the same way as the first party? (ISSUE-49)
17:18:05 [aleecia]
17:18:06 [adrianba]
17:18:06 [trackbot]
ACTION-161 -- Shane Wiley to work on issue-49 -- due 2012-05-07 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:18:06 [trackbot]
17:18:09 [justin_]
adrianba, Sure
17:18:19 [justin_]
Shortest scribing FTW.
17:18:36 [adrianba]
scribenick: justin_
17:18:45 [aleecia]
A Third-Party MAY operate as a First Party if the following conditions are met:
17:18:46 [aleecia]
• Data collected is separated for each First Party by technical means and organizational process, AND
17:18:47 [aleecia]
• The Third Party has no independent rights to the collected information outside of Permitted Uses (see Section X.Y), AND
17:18:48 [aleecia]
• A contractual relationship exists between the Third Party and the First Party that outlines and mandates these requirements.
17:18:49 [aleecia]
A Third-Party acting on the behalf of a First Party is subject to all of the same restrictions of a First Party.
17:19:03 [justin_]
aleecia: Reading above for those not on IRC
17:19:15 [Zakim]
17:19:19 [jmayer]
17:19:25 [npdoty]
WileyS, you intend this as an elaboration/definition of "Service Provider", yeah?
17:19:26 [Zakim]
17:19:38 [justin_]
17:19:38 [adrianba]
adrianba has left #dnt
17:19:42 [aleecia]
17:19:49 [WileyS]
17:19:50 [rvaneijk]
WIleyS, the limitation of futher use is lacking in the normative text.
17:19:53 [aleecia]
ack jmayer
17:19:57 [justin_]
aleecia: This is text from WileyS
17:20:14 [justin_]
jmayer: Two points: This conflates service providers and first parties.
17:20:28 [justin_]
... There's value in treating them separately.
17:20:36 [justin_]
... O
17:20:55 [dsinger]
q+ to say "operate as a First Party" should be "operate under the rules for a first party", but otherwise agree
17:21:11 [justin_]
... Otherwise, it's easy to think that service providers have the same complete lack of restrictions that first parties have (or don't have).
17:21:49 [WileyS]
JMayer, could you give an example that worries you?
17:22:14 [justin_]
... Second, glad that service providers can't use for their own purposes, but what if service providers can get access to extra data?
17:22:17 [npdoty]
re-use for market research, is that an example?
17:22:29 [aleecia]
17:22:35 [aleecia]
ack justin_
17:22:42 [WileyS]
Okay with placing "Service Provider" at the top of the text (as that's what we're trying to cover here)
17:22:47 [WileyS]
Justin, yes.
17:22:54 [npdoty]
justin: is this language just meant to replace outsourcing/service provider language?
17:23:04 [aleecia]
17:23:08 [aleecia]
ack dsinger
17:23:08 [Zakim]
dsinger, you wanted to say "operate as a First Party" should be "operate under the rules for a first party", but otherwise agree
17:23:09 [jmayer]
Q: How is this supposed to substantively change the current text?
17:23:12 [WileyS]
Disagree with the removal for the permitted use protection
17:23:14 [justin_]
justin_: Is this language just meant to be a replacement to the current language in the Strawman draft on outsourcing?
17:23:20 [justin_]
WileyS: yes.
17:23:27 [WileyS]
David, I'm fine with that change
17:23:37 [WileyS]
Got it
17:23:44 [justin_]
dsinger: I'd prefer that the language say that the service provider isn't a first party, but that they may act as a first party.
17:23:48 [jmayer]
I'd much prefer to be more explicit.
17:24:24 [justin_]
aleecia: Remember, that the third parties can have outsourcing service providers too, so we may need to adapt this definition to reflect that.
17:24:37 [justin_]
... Asks WileyS to accomodate the language.
17:24:40 [WileyS]
Aleecia, yes - makes sense
17:24:57 [aleecia]
17:25:19 [dsinger]
zakim, who is making noise?
17:25:23 [justin_]
... Some editing needs to get done here. Seeing no one on queue, wants to know what can be done to address jmayer's concerns.
17:25:29 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: jchester2 (14%)
17:25:47 [npdoty]
Zakim, mute jchester2
17:25:47 [Zakim]
jchester2 should now be muted
17:25:50 [justin_]
... Notes that there are limitations, contractual relationships, etc. --- other than permitted uses, what do you need jmayer?
17:26:01 [jchester2]
17:26:30 [jchester2]
I heard the static. thks
17:26:33 [WileyS]
We disagreed with your language and approach -- and feel this is a better position (less prescriptive but meets the same goals)
17:26:48 [justin_]
jmayer: I'd prefer our language that was rejected by folks in the ad industry. This language looks much less stringent. Weaker siloing. More ability to use information . Weaker legal protections.
17:26:49 [WileyS]
Feel free to compare
17:27:12 [WileyS]
17:27:15 [justin_]
... Would like to see a comparison between our language and this language. What's in here that solves their problems?
17:27:16 [jchester2]
I also would like to hear.
17:27:21 [aleecia]
ack WileyS
17:27:36 [justin_]
WileyS: This is cleaner, less prescriptive, more flexibile through a variety of mechanisms.
17:27:41 [justin_]
jmayer: How?
17:27:56 [jchester2]
How is it prescriptive, Shane?
17:27:58 [npdoty]
WileyS, when we're talking about "prescriptive", is that on the example technical means?
17:28:06 [justin_]
WileyS: Feel free to point out why what you suggested is needed, but no one will implement.
17:28:10 [WileyS]
Nick, yes
17:28:28 [justin_]
aleecia: Take this to the mailing list and look at side-by-side.
17:28:44 [jmayer]
You mean the explicitly "Non-Normative" language?
17:28:45 [WileyS]
Got it
17:28:54 [jmayer]
That was prescriptive?
17:28:57 [justin_]
... Reopening action item for WileyS to make the two edits that we seemed to agree upon on the call.
17:29:01 [WileyS]
jmayer, the structure of the normative language as well.
17:29:43 [justin_]
... Not seeing movement toward the middle, so we may be moving down the path of taking formal objections.
17:29:54 [Zakim]
17:29:55 [justin_]
... That's probably where we're headed :(
17:29:56 [Zakim]
17:29:56 [Zakim]
17:29:56 [Zakim]
17:29:57 [Zakim]
17:29:57 [Zakim]
17:29:58 [Zakim]
17:30:00 [Zakim]
17:30:01 [justin_]
... Take care and see you later.
17:30:01 [Zakim]
17:30:03 [Zakim]
17:30:05 [Zakim]
17:30:08 [Zakim]
17:30:09 [Zakim]
17:30:11 [Zakim]
17:30:13 [Zakim]
17:30:16 [npdoty]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:30:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate npdoty
17:30:16 [Zakim]
17:30:17 [Zakim]
17:30:19 [Zakim]
17:30:21 [Zakim]
17:30:23 [Zakim]
17:30:25 [Zakim]
17:30:27 [Zakim]
17:30:29 [Zakim]
17:30:30 [npdoty]
Zakim, list attendees
17:30:31 [Zakim]
17:30:33 [Zakim]
17:30:35 [Zakim]
17:30:37 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +1.408.674.aaaa, BrendanIAB?, npdoty, aleecia, +1.202.326.aabb, efelten, +49.431.98.aacc, ninjamarnau, +1.202.370.aadd, suegl, robsherman,
17:30:40 [Zakim]
... Chris_IAB?, jchester2, +1.646.654.aaee, +1.415.734.aaff, +1.206.658.aagg, +1.202.637.aahh, +49.721.83.aaii, justin_, dsriedel, KevinT, vincent, bryan, amyc, dsinger,
17:30:43 [Zakim]
... +1.207.619.aajj, dwainberg, [Microsoft], adrianba, +1.408.349.aakk, WileyS, +1.310.392.aall, eberkower, +1.919.517.aamm, +1.678.580.aann, +1.917.318.aaoo, sidstamm,
17:30:46 [Zakim]
... +1.201.723.aapp, johnsimpson, +1.202.507.aaqq, susanisrael, ChrisPedigoOPA, +1.206.369.aarr, +1.609.981.aass, tedleung, +1.813.366.aatt, alex, chapell, AnnaLong, Brooks,
17:30:49 [Zakim]
... +1.202.684.aauu, +1.703.265.aavv, jmayer, +1.408.223.aaww, +1.703.265.aaxx, bilcorry, +1.781.472.aayy, samsilberman, jeffwilson, cblouch, +49.172.147.aazz, schunter,
17:30:52 [Zakim]
... +31.65.141.bbaa, rvaneijk, +1.508.655.bbbb, tl, HenryGoldstein, damiano_
17:30:54 [Zakim]
17:30:56 [Zakim]
17:30:58 [Zakim]
17:31:00 [Zakim]
17:31:09 [cblouch]
cblouch has left #dnt
17:32:11 [robsherman1]
robsherman1 has joined #dnt
17:32:41 [Zakim]
17:49:52 [Zakim]
17:53:27 [Zakim]
17:58:01 [ifette]
ifette has joined #dnt
17:58:27 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, ChrisPedigoOPA, in T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
17:58:29 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:58:29 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.408.674.aaaa, BrendanIAB?, npdoty, aleecia, +1.202.326.aabb, efelten, +49.431.98.aacc, ninjamarnau, +1.202.370.aadd, suegl, robsherman, Chris_IAB?, jchester2,
17:58:29 [Zakim]
... +1.646.654.aaee, +1.415.734.aaff, +1.206.658.aagg, +1.202.637.aahh, +49.721.83.aaii, justin_, dsriedel, KevinT, vincent, bryan, amyc, dsinger, +1.207.619.aajj, dwainberg,
17:58:31 [Zakim]
... [Microsoft], adrianba, +1.408.349.aakk, WileyS, +1.310.392.aall, eberkower, +1.919.517.aamm, +1.678.580.aann, +1.917.318.aaoo, sidstamm, +1.201.723.aapp, johnsimpson,
17:58:33 [Zakim]
... +1.202.507.aaqq, susanisrael, ChrisPedigoOPA, +1.206.369.aarr, +1.609.981.aass, tedleung, +1.813.366.aatt, alex, chapell, AnnaLong, Brooks, +1.202.684.aauu, +1.703.265.aavv,
17:58:36 [Zakim]
... jmayer, +1.408.223.aaww, +1.703.265.aaxx, bilcorry, +1.781.472.aayy, samsilberman, jeffwilson, cblouch, +49.172.147.aazz, schunter, +31.65.141.bbaa, rvaneijk, +1.508.655.bbbb,
17:58:39 [Zakim]
... tl, HenryGoldstein, damiano_
17:58:47 [ifette_]
ifette_ has joined #dnt
18:09:25 [tl]
tl has joined #dnt
19:59:04 [ifette]
ifette has joined #dnt
19:59:16 [ifette_]
ifette_ has joined #dnt
20:35:01 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #dnt
20:42:10 [tlr]
tlr has joined #dnt
20:56:07 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
20:59:09 [schunter1]
schunter1 has joined #dnt
21:03:51 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
21:04:51 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
21:09:19 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
21:11:32 [tl]
tl has joined #dnt
21:16:54 [schunter1]
schunter1 has joined #dnt
21:20:14 [ifette_]
ifette_ has joined #dnt
21:47:58 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
21:58:44 [schunter1]
schunter1 has joined #dnt
22:51:14 [tlr]
tlr has joined #dnt
23:16:48 [ifette]
ifette has joined #dnt