16:23:47 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
16:23:47 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/11/14-dnt-irc
16:23:58 <aleecia> Zakim, this will be dnt
16:23:58 <Zakim> ok, aleecia; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 37 minutes
16:24:12 <aleecia> chair: aleecia
16:24:20 <aleecia> regrets+ tl
16:24:22 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
16:24:32 <aleecia> rrsagent, make logs public
16:24:56 <aleecia> agenda+ Selection of scribe
16:25:01 <aleecia> zakim, clear agenda
16:25:01 <Zakim> agenda cleared
16:25:07 <aleecia> agenda+ Selection of scribe
16:25:23 <aleecia> agenda+ Review of overdue action items:  http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
16:25:35 <aleecia> agenda+ Quick check that callers are identified
16:25:51 <aleecia> agenda+ Texts nearing a call for objections poll
16:26:07 <aleecia> agenda+ Pending review actions: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/pendingreview?sort=id
16:26:17 <aleecia> agenda+ Discussion of next steps
16:26:26 <aleecia> agenda+ Announce next meeting & adjourn
16:26:31 <robsherman> robsherman has joined #dnt
16:26:40 <rvaneijk> rvaneijk has joined #dnt
16:44:35 <tl> tl has joined #dnt
16:45:34 <rigo> rigo has joined #dnt
16:48:31 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
16:48:48 <rigo> zakim, code?
16:48:48 <Zakim> the conference code is 87225 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), rigo
16:49:22 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
16:49:29 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
16:50:13 <tlr> zakim, call thomas-781
16:50:13 <Zakim> ok, tlr; the call is being made
16:50:14 <Zakim> +Thomas
16:51:05 <Zakim> +Rigo
16:51:19 <Zakim> +??P16
16:51:42 <rvaneijk> zakim, P16 is me
16:51:42 <Zakim> sorry, rvaneijk, I do not recognize a party named 'P16'
16:52:15 <rvaneijk> zakim, +??P16 is eme
16:52:15 <Zakim> sorry, rvaneijk, I do not recognize a party named '+??P16'
16:52:31 <tlr> zakim, ??P16 rvaneijk
16:52:31 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P16 rvaneijk', tlr
16:52:33 <tlr> zakim, ??P16 is rvaneijk
16:52:33 <Zakim> +rvaneijk; got it
16:53:44 <Zakim> +aleecia
16:53:59 <aleecia> please mute
16:55:34 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
16:55:50 <dtauerbach> dtauerbach has joined #dnt
16:55:50 <BrendanIAB> BrendanIAB has joined #dnt
16:55:55 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
16:56:14 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:56:26 <Zakim> + +1.202.344.aaaa
16:56:29 <BrendanIAB> Zakim, IPCaller is probably me
16:56:29 <Zakim> +BrendanIAB?; got it
16:56:53 <suegl> suegl has joined #dnt
16:57:12 <tlr> zakim, aaaa is [DAAinDC]
16:57:12 <Zakim> +[DAAinDC]; got it
16:57:47 <tlr> zakim, DAAinDC has ChrisMejia, MarcGroman, DWainberg, loumastria, PeterKosmalla
16:57:48 <Zakim> +ChrisMejia, MarcGroman, DWainberg, loumastria, PeterKosmalla; got it
16:58:03 <Zakim> +suegl
16:58:04 <jchester2> jchester2 has joined #dnt
16:58:04 <Zakim> + +1.714.852.aabb
16:58:13 <jeffwilson> jeffwilson has joined #dnt
16:58:17 <ifette> ifette has joined #dnt
16:58:20 <Zakim> + +1.650.465.aacc
16:58:29 <Chris_IAB> Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
16:58:29 <Zakim> + +1.703.265.aadd
16:58:30 <npdoty_> npdoty_ has joined #dnt
16:58:33 <fielding> zakim, aabb is fielding
16:58:33 <Zakim> +fielding; got it
16:58:40 <tl> regrets+ me
16:58:45 <tlr> regrets+ tl
16:58:48 <jeffwilson> zakim, aadd is jeffwilson
16:58:49 <Zakim> +jeffwilson; got it
16:58:50 <Zakim> +[Google]
16:58:53 <ifette> Zakim, google has ifette
16:58:53 <Zakim> +ifette; got it
16:58:56 <tlr> zakim, aacc is DavidMc??
16:58:56 <Zakim> +DavidMc??; got it
16:59:01 <Zakim> + +1.202.296.aaee
16:59:01 <Zakim> + +1.206.658.aaff
16:59:02 <Zakim> +??P38
16:59:03 <tl> I'll be able to spectate and tune in a little, but not materially participate.
16:59:04 <Zakim> +jchester2
16:59:09 <jchester2> zakim, mute me
16:59:09 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
16:59:13 <Walter> Zakim, ??P38 is Walter
16:59:13 <Zakim> +Walter; got it
16:59:17 <moneill2> moneill2 has joined #dnt
16:59:24 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #dnt
16:59:33 <tlr> zakim, aaee is KeithScarborough
16:59:33 <Zakim> +KeithScarborough; got it
16:59:41 <ifette> Out of curiosity, is anyone going to the workshop in two weeks?
16:59:45 <tlr> zakim, aaff is amy_c
16:59:45 <Zakim> +amy_c; got it
16:59:54 <Walter> ifette: haven't been invited
16:59:55 <Zakim> +npdoty
16:59:57 <tlr> ifette, yes
16:59:58 <Lmastria-DAA> Lmastria-DAA has joined #dnt
16:59:58 <marc> marc has joined #DNT
16:59:59 <Zakim> +[Apple]
17:00:04 <dsinger> zakim, [apple] has dsinger
17:00:04 <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
17:00:09 <Keith> Keith has joined #dnt
17:00:14 <ifette> I don't think I can make it. It's literally right after thanksgiving
17:00:17 <dwainberg> Ian, I'll be there
17:00:28 <Zakim> -suegl
17:00:33 <dwainberg> yeah, not great timing wrt thanksgiving
17:00:37 <npdoty> ifette, Walter, some of us have been behind on sending out email and invitations while traveling, but ping me again if I haven't been responsive on email
17:00:45 <Zakim> +[FTC]
17:00:46 <vinay> vinay has joined #dnt
17:00:53 <Zakim> +hefferjr
17:00:58 <Zakim> + +1.650.690.aagg
17:01:01 <Zakim> + +1.415.728.aahh
17:01:02 <Zakim> +suegl
17:01:03 <hefferjr> hefferjr has joined #dnt
17:01:08 <robsherman> zakim, aagg is robsherman
17:01:08 <Zakim> +robsherman; got it
17:01:09 <Walter> npdoty: I was referring to the workshop in BXL, I don't even exactly know when it is
17:01:11 <vinay> zakim, aahh is vinay
17:01:11 <Zakim> +vinay; got it
17:01:17 <Zakim> + +1.301.351.aaii
17:01:24 <aleecia> agenda?
17:01:24 <Walter> npdoty: but I plan to be in BXL on 27th and 28th anyway
17:01:29 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
17:01:33 <ifette> not sure if I'm going to be with family in New Mexico or snapping photos of Angkor Wat in Cambodia, but I will not be in SF...
17:01:40 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: hefferjr (2%)
17:02:10 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:02:22 <ChrisPedigoOPA> ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
17:02:26 <ifette> When was the last time we approved previously scribed minutes?
17:02:29 <rigo> zakim, pick a victim
17:02:31 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose +1.301.351.aaii
17:02:43 <moneill2> zakim, [Ipcaller] is me
17:02:43 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
17:02:45 <aleecia> scribenick: dsinger
17:02:49 <ifette> I see all minutes since July marked as draft
17:02:49 <aleecia> agenda?
17:02:51 <ifette> no minutes from October
17:02:51 <dtauerbach> 301 is me, but i'm unable to scribe
17:02:53 <ifette> or November
17:02:57 <rigo> zakim, mute me
17:02:57 <Zakim> Rigo should now be muted
17:02:57 <tlr> zakim, aaii is dtauerbach
17:02:59 <Zakim> +dtauerbach; got it
17:02:59 <WileyS> WileyS has joined #DNT
17:03:01 <Zakim> + +1.919.388.aajj
17:03:06 <dsinger> aleecia: we'll start with overdue action items
17:03:13 <dsinger> …good progress, which is great
17:03:15 <Zakim> +WileyS
17:03:18 <ifette> aleecia...
17:03:19 <ifette> agenda q
17:03:20 <AnnaLong> AnnaLong has joined #dnt
17:03:29 <ifette> did we stop reviewing past minutes?
17:03:42 <tlr> ack t
17:03:44 <tlr> ack tlr
17:03:46 <tlr> ack thomas
17:03:46 <dsinger> …for the first 4 (Juston), he reports he cannot join, these are editing, and he'll be doing these in this next week
17:03:52 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
17:03:52 <peter-4As> peter-4As has joined #dnt
17:03:52 <tl> Not with voice!
17:03:53 <Zakim> +Craig_Spiezle
17:03:56 <dsinger> s/Juston/Justin/
17:04:01 <tl> I'm "multi-tasking".
17:04:02 <npdoty> action-323?
17:04:02 <trackbot> ACTION-323 -- Thomas Lowenthal to share results of what-the-response-is-for discussion -- due 2012-10-22 -- OPEN
17:04:02 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/323
17:04:04 <tlr> zakim, I am thomas
17:04:04 <Zakim> ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
17:04:09 <dsinger> …next Tom Lowenthal
17:04:13 <tlr> zakim, mute me
17:04:13 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
17:04:17 <npdoty> tl, do you have an update on 323 to share via irc?
17:04:30 <dsinger> …we need Tom's actions done
17:04:32 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:04:34 <npdoty> I think it's just one action open on tl
17:04:38 <CraigSpiezle> CraigSpiezle has joined #dnt
17:04:46 <tlr> action-268?
17:04:46 <trackbot> ACTION-268 -- David Singer to edit the TPE document to make sure that the final definition of parties is in sync across the two specifications -- due 2012-11-12 -- OPEN
17:04:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/268
17:04:49 <vincent> zakim, [IPcaller] is vincent
17:04:50 <Zakim> +vincent; got it
17:04:54 <rigo> I think that was done
17:04:58 <Zakim> + +aakk
17:04:59 <tl> npdoty: Can't talk much now, sorry.
17:05:13 <Zakim> +??P62
17:05:14 <pedermagee> pedermagee has joined #dnt
17:05:15 <Zakim> +Chris_Pedigo
17:05:25 <npdoty> marked 268 pending review
17:05:38 <dsinger> …dave singer to coordinate with Justin on the joint one
17:05:39 <rigo> ack ri
17:05:49 <rigo> action-330?
17:05:49 <trackbot> ACTION-330 -- Rigo Wenning to send a reminder about http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-international/ -- due 2012-11-07 -- OPEN
17:05:49 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/330
17:05:55 <dsinger> …then Rigo's on international action 330
17:05:56 <dsriedel> dsriedel has joined #dnt
17:06:03 <Zakim> + +1.303.661.aall
17:06:09 <Simon> Simon has joined #dnt
17:06:31 <dsinger> Rigo: thinks it is done, sent a reminder to the public list, with lots of responses. We have 36 registered for the task force. French are invited.
17:06:40 <Zakim> + +1.646.654.aamm
17:06:44 <dsinger> action  320 can close
17:06:44 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find 320. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/users>.
17:06:50 <ifette> we can hear
17:06:51 <kj> kj has joined #dnt
17:07:08 <aleecia> agenda?
17:07:08 <eberkower> eberkower has joined #dnt
17:07:15 <aleecia> close agendum 1
17:07:15 <dsinger> Nick: the minutes are still being automatically drafted, and cleaning up is taking a lower priority.
17:07:17 <Zakim> +??P72
17:07:19 <Zakim> +dsriedel
17:07:20 <aleecia> close agendum 2
17:07:27 <dsriedel> zakim, mute me
17:07:27 <Zakim> dsriedel should now be muted
17:07:28 <ifette> q+
17:07:29 <dsinger> Nick: not prioritizing manual cleanup
17:07:38 <laurengelman> laurengelman has joined #dnt
17:07:40 <aleecia> ack ifette
17:08:06 <susanisrael> susanisrael has joined #dnt
17:08:10 <tlr> zakim, MikeZaneis has arrived in DAAinDC
17:08:10 <Zakim> +MikeZaneis; got it
17:08:16 <Zakim> + +1.215.286.aann
17:08:25 <dsinger> Ifette: would like the minutes cleaned and available, approved for accuracy and made available.  worried that our ability to correct will get worse as they get older
17:08:37 <npdoty> while it happened in theory, I think we had problems with confirming accuracy, even with short term approvals
17:08:39 <dsinger> …has not been looking at the raw minutes for accurcacy
17:08:45 <Zakim> +Chapell
17:08:49 <dsinger> s/accurcacy/accuracy/
17:08:53 <susanisrael> 215286aann is susan israel
17:09:02 <npdoty> Zakim, aann is susanisrael
17:09:02 <Zakim> +susanisrael; got it
17:09:10 <Chapell> Chapell has joined #DNT
17:09:16 <dsinger> aleecia: one vote for more rapid cleanup; perhaps in reverse chron order, so we can check the recent ones
17:09:19 <laurengelman> i just joined too
17:09:20 <tlr> q+
17:09:25 <aleecia> ack tlr
17:09:31 <npdoty> ack Thomas
17:09:36 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
17:09:41 <dsinger> ifette: is fine asking people to review the draft/raw minutes, but don't want to put it all on Nick
17:09:45 <Zakim> +brooks
17:09:53 <jmayer> jmayer has joined #dnt
17:10:04 <susanisrael> i came in late to the discussion of minutes but i know there was some errors in the minutes one day when i scribed.  i would have been willing to go back and clean them up.
17:10:12 <dsinger> tlr: maybe the easy way out is dirtier minutes more rapidly available
17:10:26 <npdoty> hearing: make minutes only relatively clean and more relatively quick
17:10:35 <Zakim> +[FTC.a]
17:10:36 <susanisrael> i think dirty minutes would be ok
17:10:40 <Walter> +1
17:10:42 <dsinger> dsinger: would like them indexed on the web site to track down what action items and issues really mean
17:10:58 <Chapell> +1 to susanisrael and nick
17:11:05 <aleecia> agenda?
17:11:12 <dsinger> aleecia: let's go for sooner+ dirtier if needed and see how people like it
17:11:13 <cOlsen> cOlsen has joined #dnt
17:11:14 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Mayer
17:11:21 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the call?
17:11:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Mozilla], Thomas, Rigo, rvaneijk, aleecia, BrendanIAB?, [DAAinDC], fielding, DavidMc??, jeffwilson, [Google], KeithScarborough, amy_c, Walter, jchester2
17:11:24 <dsinger> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:11:24 <Zakim> ... (muted), npdoty, [Apple], [FTC], hefferjr, robsherman, vinay, suegl, dtauerbach, moneill2, +1.919.388.aajj, WileyS, Craig_Spiezle, vincent, +aakk, ??P62, Chris_Pedigo,
17:11:24 <Zakim> ... +1.303.661.aall, +1.646.654.aamm, dsriedel (muted), ??P72, susanisrael, Chapell, brooks, [FTC.a], Jonathan_Mayer
17:11:24 <Zakim> [Google] has ifette
17:11:24 <Zakim> [DAAinDC] has ChrisMejia, MarcGroman, DWainberg, loumastria, PeterKosmalla, MikeZaneis
17:11:24 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
17:11:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Mozilla], Thomas, Rigo, rvaneijk, aleecia, BrendanIAB?, [DAAinDC], fielding, DavidMc??, jeffwilson, [Google], KeithScarborough, amy_c, Walter, jchester2
17:11:28 <Zakim> ... (muted), npdoty, [Apple], [FTC], hefferjr, robsherman, vinay, suegl, dtauerbach, moneill2, +1.919.388.aajj, WileyS, Craig_Spiezle, vincent, +aakk, ??P62, Chris_Pedigo,
17:11:28 <Zakim> ... +1.303.661.aall, +1.646.654.aamm, dsriedel (muted), ??P72, susanisrael, Chapell, brooks, [FTC.a], Jonathan_Mayer
17:11:32 <Zakim> [Google] has ifette
17:11:32 <Zakim> [DAAinDC] has ChrisMejia, MarcGroman, DWainberg, loumastria, PeterKosmalla, MikeZaneis
17:11:32 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
17:11:34 <eberkower> aamm = eberkower
17:11:40 <npdoty> Zakim, aamm is eberkower
17:11:40 <Zakim> +eberkower; got it
17:11:40 <tlr> zakim, aamm is eberkower
17:11:41 <Zakim> sorry, tlr, I do not recognize a party named 'aamm'
17:11:46 <Chapell> zakim aamm is Chapell
17:11:52 <npdoty> Zakim, aajj is AnnaLong
17:11:53 <Zakim> +AnnaLong; got it
17:11:55 <Chapell> zakim, aamm is Chapell
17:11:55 <Zakim> sorry, Chapell, I do not recognize a party named 'aamm'
17:11:57 <dsinger> aleecia: checking callers...
17:11:58 <Simon> that's me
17:12:15 <npdoty> Zakim, aall is Simon
17:12:15 <Zakim> +Simon; got it
17:12:22 <tlr> q+
17:12:26 <JC> JC has joined #DNT
17:12:30 <tlr> ack thomas
17:12:31 <npdoty> at least one IP caller
17:12:35 <dsinger> zakim, who is on the call?
17:12:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Mozilla], Thomas, Rigo, rvaneijk, aleecia, BrendanIAB?, [DAAinDC], fielding, DavidMc??, jeffwilson, [Google], KeithScarborough, amy_c, Walter, jchester2
17:12:36 <Zakim> ... (muted), npdoty, [Apple], [FTC], hefferjr, robsherman, vinay, suegl, dtauerbach, moneill2, AnnaLong, WileyS, Craig_Spiezle, vincent, +aakk, ??P62, Chris_Pedigo, Simon,
17:12:40 <Zakim> ... eberkower, dsriedel (muted), ??P72, susanisrael, Chapell, brooks, [FTC.a], Jonathan_Mayer
17:12:40 <Zakim> [Google] has ifette
17:12:40 <Zakim> [DAAinDC] has ChrisMejia, MarcGroman, DWainberg, loumastria, PeterKosmalla, MikeZaneis
17:12:40 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
17:12:42 <laurengelman> I am the IP
17:12:49 <npdoty> Zakim, ??P72 is laurengelman
17:12:49 <Zakim> +laurengelman; got it
17:12:57 <tlr> zakim, please drop +aakk
17:12:57 <Zakim> +aakk is being disconnected
17:12:58 <Zakim> - +aakk
17:13:20 <Zakim> -Craig_Spiezle
17:13:30 <Zakim> + +aaoo
17:13:31 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
17:13:31 <aleecia> zakim, who is on the call?
17:13:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Mozilla], Thomas, Rigo, rvaneijk, aleecia, BrendanIAB?, [DAAinDC], fielding, DavidMc??, jeffwilson, [Google], KeithScarborough, amy_c, Walter, jchester2
17:13:32 <Zakim> ... (muted), npdoty, [Apple], [FTC], hefferjr, robsherman, vinay, suegl, dtauerbach, moneill2, AnnaLong, WileyS, vincent, ??P62, Chris_Pedigo, Simon, eberkower, dsriedel (muted),
17:13:32 <Zakim> ... laurengelman, susanisrael, Chapell, brooks, [FTC.a], Jonathan_Mayer, +aaoo, [Microsoft]
17:13:32 <Zakim> [Google] has ifette
17:13:37 <Zakim> [DAAinDC] has ChrisMejia, MarcGroman, DWainberg, loumastria, PeterKosmalla, MikeZaneis
17:13:37 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
17:13:56 <npdoty> Zakim, [Microsoft] has JC
17:13:56 <Zakim> +JC; got it
17:14:00 <tlr> zakim, +aaoo pedermagee
17:14:00 <Zakim> I don't understand '+aaoo pedermagee', tlr
17:14:02 <npdoty> Zakim, aaoo is pedermagee
17:14:02 <Zakim> +pedermagee; got it
17:14:02 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
17:14:03 <tlr> zakim, +aaoo is pedermagee
17:14:03 <Zakim> sorry, tlr, I do not recognize a party named '+aaoo'
17:14:05 <aleecia> agenda?
17:14:39 <laurengelman> I was one of the VOIP
17:14:42 <Zakim> +Craig_Spiezle
17:15:06 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
17:15:10 <adrianba> zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
17:15:10 <Zakim> +adrianba; got it
17:15:18 <tlr> zakim, please drop ??P62
17:15:18 <Zakim> ??P62 is being disconnected
17:15:20 <Zakim> -??P62
17:15:26 <tlr> zakim, mute me
17:15:26 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
17:15:43 <laurengelman> :)
17:15:44 <aleecia> zakim, close agendum 3
17:15:44 <Zakim> agendum 3, Quick check that callers are identified, closed
17:15:46 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:15:46 <Zakim> 4. Texts nearing a call for objections poll [from aleecia]
17:15:46 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:16:18 <tlr> zakim, [IPcaller] is PhilPearce
17:16:18 <Zakim> +PhilPearce; got it
17:16:57 <npdoty> Zakim, take up agendum 4
17:16:57 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Texts nearing a call for objections poll" taken up [from aleecia]
17:16:58 <dsinger> aleecia: now getting close to calls for objections and decision process; let's get sync'd up
17:17:17 <aleecia> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#def-unlinkable
17:17:23 <dsinger> …(1) unlinkable data:  3 possibilities;  2 are in the compliance document.
17:17:41 <dsinger> ….3.6.1 and 3.6.2; and the 3rd is action 286
17:17:44 <dsinger> action-286?
17:17:44 <trackbot> ACTION-286 -- Brendan Riordan-Butterworth to propose DAA text regarding de-identification (for unlinkability discussion) -- due 2012-11-22 -- OPEN
17:17:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/286
17:17:50 <adrianba> zakim, mute me
17:17:50 <Zakim> adrianba should now be muted
17:17:54 <dsinger> …action 286 is the DAA text
17:18:35 <dsinger> ….we're now five weeks in; the owner changed the due date :-(. We need it completed immediately or it'll be closed for lack of action
17:18:49 <WileyS> q?
17:19:30 <dsinger> Lmastria: we feel it's a blank check, we don't understand how the defn will be used
17:19:45 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has joined #dnt
17:19:53 <jmayer> q+
17:19:57 <Walter> q+
17:20:00 <dtauerbach> +q
17:20:02 <dsinger> …a concern is that folks are trying to take bits and pieces of a whole cloth and pick the bits that they like; the DAA program is not suited to that
17:20:09 <ifette> q+
17:20:18 <npdoty> after we decide on a definition for a term, it's possible that that would cause people to have concerns about related compliance requirements, right?
17:20:19 <dsinger> …until we have clearer defns around what tracking means, how this will be used, it's hard to find any language
17:20:23 <ifette> At some point, it seems like we're moving towards a vote on different text for unlinkability
17:20:31 <ifette> issues aside, i'd rather have a DAA option to vote on than no option
17:20:37 <aleecia> ack jmayer
17:20:40 <dsinger> aleecia: we'll take the Q
17:21:00 <WileyS> Inappropriate!
17:21:08 <Joanne> Joanne has joined #DNT
17:21:12 <Zakim> +johnsimpson
17:21:16 <dsinger> jmayer: some comments on process
17:21:37 <rachelthomas> rachelthomas has joined #dnt
17:21:42 <WileyS> The concern was raised on the public mail list
17:21:47 <WileyS> 2+ weeks ago
17:21:52 <dsinger> …is concerned about a problem being surfaced 5 weeks after the action was raised
17:21:57 <rachelthomas> q+
17:22:11 <hwest> hwest has joined #dnt
17:22:11 <Zakim> +hwest
17:22:25 <Lmastria-DAA> The issue of lack of fundamental definitions has been raised before. it is being raised again. Nothing has changed
17:22:34 <dsinger> …on the substance, the point is to find constraints where consumer privacy concerns are really reduced. Am concerned about the idea that that idea should be flexible
17:22:48 <dsinger> …the point of unlnkability is to find stuff that, well, cannot be linked
17:22:50 <aleecia> this *is* a definition.
17:22:57 <dsinger> s/unlnkability/unlinkability/
17:22:57 <Zakim> + +1.609.258.aapp
17:23:00 <aleecia> we're trying to nail down the definition of unlinkability
17:23:01 <fielding> while I think the concern was obviously raised many times during, before, and after the action was assigned, let's just drop the action until someone does it.
17:23:04 <efelten_> Zakim, aapp is me
17:23:04 <Zakim> +efelten_; got it
17:23:05 <aleecia> ack walter
17:23:05 <tlr> lmastria, "unlikability" seems like a fundamental definition to me.  And I'm confused about about the current due date on the action item if you have a fundamental concern.
17:23:28 <dsinger> walter: I share some of these concerns. (garbled)
17:23:36 <ifette> cant really understand walter
17:23:38 <aleecia> very hard to understand you, walter
17:23:38 <ifette> very bad audio quality
17:23:41 <jchester2> can someone tell Walter there is a sound problem, please
17:23:54 <dsinger> …(())) monolithic solutions…linkability…is willing to take on the action
17:24:00 <eberkower> Having a hard time understanding what he's saying
17:24:01 <Chris_IAB> unlinkability, like other things, need to be considered in the context of the definition of "tracking" -- which has been raised (but not opened by the co-chairs) for FAR longer than 5-weeks
17:24:15 <Walter> Ok
17:24:31 <rigo> Lou, the lack of fundamental definitions can be seen as a bug or as a feature. For the definition of "tracking" I consider it a feature. At best, we will define "tracking" as a definition of DNT:0
17:24:58 <rigo> I consider it a feature because it will create more problems than it solves
17:25:00 <dsinger> aleecia: suggests you take the action, see 3.6.1 and 2, and then see if a new text is warranted
17:25:01 <aleecia> q?
17:25:08 <jchester2> Question for the DAA and DMA.  Does the DAA still support its proposal from Amsterdam that its language related to advertising and marketing be a permitted use?  Thanks
17:25:19 <aleecia> ack dtauerbauch
17:25:20 <dsinger> ack dtauerbach
17:25:45 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
17:25:46 <Walter> Basically, what I said was that it is not the nature of this process to approach the text as a monolithic thing. This is a conversation.
17:25:50 <Zakim> + +1.415.520.aaqq
17:25:51 <dsinger> dtauerbach: it does seem kind of weird that we can't settle this without the rest of the document. volunteers non-normative text, with Shane
17:25:52 <Zakim> -amy_c
17:26:01 <WileyS> Dan - most of the non-normative text already exists - see the full draft
17:26:06 <Joanne> Zakim, aaqq is me
17:26:06 <Zakim> +Joanne; got it
17:26:13 <Walter> Unlinkable data has been defined
17:26:13 <dsinger> action dtauerbach to write non-normative text on unlinkability, with Shane
17:26:13 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find dtauerbach. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/users>.
17:26:23 <Walter> What lacks a definition is a description on how to get there
17:26:34 <npdoty> Section 3.6 doesn't have non-normative text
17:26:34 <amyc> amyc has joined #dnt
17:26:40 <ifette> use auerbach
17:26:42 <ifette> instead of dtauerbach
17:26:45 <WileyS> Okay - its on the mailing list so I'll dig it up and send it to Dan.  I believe the non-normative text works with either definition :-)
17:26:47 <aleecia> q?
17:26:48 <vincent> Walter, not sure we agreed on a definition
17:26:50 <ifette> dsinger, use "auerbach"
17:26:53 <aleecia> ack ifette
17:26:59 <jmayer> My point: I don't see why context should matter.  Unlinkability is about the set of constraints under which consumer privacy risks are reduced because data cannot be linked.  I'm greatly disappointed if participants want to distort the plain meaning of that term and the accompanying computer science out of crass economic interest.
17:27:00 <dsinger> action auerbach to write non-normative text on unlinkability, with Shane
17:27:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-335 - Write non-normative text on unlinkability, with Shane [on Dan Auerbach - due 2012-11-21].
17:27:00 <npdoty> action: auerbach to write non-normative text on unlinkability (with Shane)
17:27:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-336 - Write non-normative text on unlinkability (with Shane) [on Dan Auerbach - due 2012-11-21].
17:27:11 <npdoty> close action-336
17:27:11 <trackbot> ACTION-336 Write non-normative text on unlinkability (with Shane) closed
17:27:13 <Walter> vincent: the definition has been shared with DAA over a week ago with zero response so far
17:27:20 <Walter> vincent: feedback would be very welcome
17:27:23 <npdoty> action-336: duplicate of 335, sorry for the confusion
17:27:23 <trackbot> ACTION-336 Write non-normative text on unlinkability (with Shane) notes added
17:27:27 <fielding> rigo, not defining tracking is not an option because it is being used to instruct users to set DNT.  If we don't define tracking, this WG is over.
17:27:40 <jmayer> The correct response, if you don't like how the spec uses unlinkability, is to not use unlinkability.  Don't fight over the definition.
17:27:52 <susanisrael> +1ianfette
17:27:53 <dsinger> ifette: gets that it is hard to come up with this in isolation. there is a rat-hole here. had we defined tracking, that would have an effect on the rest of the document. that said, I do see aleecia trying to move to some conclusion.
17:27:53 <BrendanIAB> For the record, I updated due date when the issue was assigned to me with a due date that was before the current time (assigned to me on Oct 31 with due date of Oct 10)
17:27:54 <dtauerbach> q?
17:28:16 <rigo> fielding, we define "Not-tracking"
17:28:27 <dsinger> …we need some option from the DAA, it would be good to have that perspective.  I realize it's not as simple as cut-n-paste, but there is a plea here to find an alternative option we can look at
17:28:29 <aleecia> ack rachelthomas
17:28:33 <rigo> and in DNT:0 we define "tracking"
17:28:54 <fielding> regardless, it is not necessary to define tracking in order to define unlinkable -- they are not dependent concepts
17:28:54 <rigo> q?
17:28:56 <rigo> q+
17:29:21 <tlr> zakim, rachelthomas has joined DAAinDC
17:29:21 <Zakim> sorry, tlr, I do not recognize a party named 'rachelthomas'
17:29:34 <tlr> zakim, RachelThomas has arrived in DAAinDC
17:29:34 <Zakim> +RachelThomas; got it
17:29:48 <vincent> +1 fielding
17:29:56 <dsinger> rachel: I hear the frustrations, but the concern about the definition of tracking is also long-standing. We understand wanting to continue the conversation, and we can give the DAA defn, but to decide on this without a definition of tracking maybe premature. We need tracking defined as a basis first.
17:30:19 <dwainberg> q+
17:30:20 <npdoty> the DAA document uses the term "de-identified" rather than "unlinkable", yeah?
17:30:21 <jmayer> The procedural problem is that there's a claimed dependency five weeks after the action was assigned. That != the group not taking up an issue on its agenda.
17:30:23 <dwainberg> q?
17:30:28 <BerinSzoka> BerinSzoka has joined #DNT
17:30:31 <jchester2> Rachel:  Are you repesenting the DAA or the DMA?
17:30:35 <dsinger> aleecia: a conversation on 'tracking' would be very long and would log-jam too many conversations, and it's not my choice as chair to do things in that order
17:30:46 <Lmastria-DAA> +q
17:30:51 <dsinger> aleecia: please provide text or the action will be closed
17:31:02 <dsinger> rachel: will offer some text before friday.
17:31:06 <aleecia> ack rigo
17:31:08 <dsinger> aleecia: many thanks
17:31:51 <dsinger> rigo: Two things. The unlinkability discussion is 'how to get off the hook', so there is some sensitivity around this (partic. around re-identification). We need a decent std of when people are off the hook
17:32:00 <tlr> q+
17:32:04 <dwainberg> q-
17:32:17 <dsinger> …and it shouldn't be dependent on the definition of tracking, because it's about how you behave afterwards
17:32:23 <aleecia> ack lmastria-DAA
17:32:30 <susanisrael> is it possible that we don't need to define unlinakable?  Maybe this is a bigger project for elsewhere in and of itself?
17:32:55 <dsinger> lMastria: with all respect, I know it's frustrating, and challenging, but the reality of the conversation about '
17:33:11 <jmayer> q+
17:33:27 <npdoty> susanisrael, I think the "unlinkable" definition is used importantly in the document, for declaring data that is out of scope for compliance requirements
17:33:51 <dsinger> ..about what tracking is, may be long and cause log-jams, but I represent a whole eco-system, and I can't say I am signing up for a way to look at things, that may go counter to some business models, and also counter perhaps to some things we offer as choice
17:33:54 <BerinSzoka> This conversation about whether or not to grapple with definitions of tracking and unlinkability in their full context reminds me of the wisdom of that great sage Homer Simpson: "If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing."
17:33:57 <dsinger> …I can't say I'll waiy for later
17:34:08 <fielding> rigo, defining tracking (or not tracking) is necessary to give the header semantics because that is how the user expectation is set
17:34:18 <dsinger> …I do need to know what I am negotiating with.  I appreciate that increases frustration,
17:34:22 <Walter> BerinSzoka: could you be a bit more constructive, please
17:34:40 <npdoty> lmastria, I think we hear your concerns about compliance, but is it necessary for us to avoid definitions at this time?
17:34:43 <dsinger> aleecia; can you clarify how defining tracking might go against the choices for transparency?  online or offline
17:34:44 <dsinger> '
17:34:44 <susanisrael> npdoty, I  understand, but it's also a big question that could consume a fair amount of time and energy in and of itself.  Does need to be defined, but maybe defer that?
17:35:11 <dsinger> lmastria: none of us seem to know what tracking is, at the moment; none of us know the impact without the defn
17:35:17 <aleecia> q?
17:35:29 <dsinger> aleecia: would like to understand more, perhaps an offline conversation?
17:35:29 <tlr> ack thomas
17:35:30 <aleecia> ack Thomas
17:35:32 <npdoty> susanisrael, I think a high-level definition of "unlinkable" is achievable, and would be useful for the document
17:36:00 <laurengelman> my understanding is that compliance requires a company to do X in response to getting a Y.  None of that requires understanding the word tracking.
17:36:22 <ifette> It may not show up in the normative language but it's in the name of the header
17:36:25 <dsinger> tlr: 2 points. We have a few other  action items where the mailing list feels that the defn of tracking is a key element. It might be good to talk about the tracking defn esp. since the word doesn't show up in normative text!
17:36:27 <BrendanIAB> +q
17:36:29 <rachelthomas> q+
17:36:34 <fielding> it is normative is TPE and a charter requirement for Compliance
17:36:44 <susanisrael> npdoty, ok i accept that.  My technical team owes me some answers on this anyway and I will use that to evaluate or try to help.
17:36:52 <BrendanIAB> The assertion that “tracking” does not show up in the current normative language is incorrect.
17:36:54 <ifette> Saying "tracking" doesn't show up anywhere may be true in the language of the spec, but the otuside world thinks we're defining "do not track" and so tracking is definitely a relevant term
17:36:55 <fielding> s/it is/tracking is/
17:36:59 <laurengelman> so it is a messaging issue, not a compliance issue
17:36:59 <Brooks> The name of the spec is therefore non-normative language?
17:37:05 <BrendanIAB> In the TPE document, the term “tracking” is used 296 times, including in the title.  It is used extensively in the simple form, and in two primary compound forms, “tracking preference” (49 times) and “tracking status” (119 times).
17:37:15 <aleecia> The name of the spec is not normative
17:37:25 <rigo> fielding, I don't think we are far away from each other
17:37:26 <fielding> q+
17:37:36 <ifette> aleecia, that may be true, but so far all the implementations present the name of the spec (and nothing else) to users
17:37:38 <ifette> so it seems germane
17:37:39 <Walter> I'd be happy to provide a definition for tracking
17:37:41 <dsinger> …second, it is always possible that text contributed (early) ends up inconsistent with what gets put in later on, and then it's totally fine for the chairs to re-open issues.  We shouldn't take that as a deterrent, and there is risk of circular dependency.  If there are concerns about context, let's be open about that, and get it on the table
17:37:50 <aleecia> ack jmayer
17:38:48 <tlr> zakim, mute me
17:38:48 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
17:38:51 <laurengelman> unlinkability is a word with meaning.  It is used when the writer INTENDS to comit MORE than the current use at anonymous
17:39:27 <WileyS> +q
17:39:27 <aleecia> note that unlinkability has a different and specific meaning in europe. we'll need another name no matter what.
17:39:30 <dsinger> jmayer: propose a possible way ahead: I hear people saying "if unlinkability is a tough defn, they wouldn't be comfortable using unlinkable data for some things".  Those a fine conversations to have.  Let's not front-load those, and not load them into unlinkable; let's define it as it's understood generally, and then if there are concerns that more is needed in some contexts, let's have that conversation.
17:39:39 <johnsimpson> q?
17:40:12 <Keith> Keith has joined #dnt
17:40:21 <aleecia> q?
17:40:22 <npdoty> currently we use "unlinkable" in the sections on Minimization, Persistent Identifiers and in proposals around Short-Term Collection
17:40:31 <npdoty> Zakim, close the queue
17:40:31 <Zakim> ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed
17:40:31 <dsinger> aleecia: when we have a defn, we can have conversations, so I am taking the DAA's point to heart, and take a defn, and see how we use unlinkable data
17:40:38 <rigo> zakim, close the q
17:40:38 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close the q', rigo
17:40:40 <dsinger> …(please don't repeat points)
17:40:41 <aleecia> ack BrendanIAB
17:40:58 <aleecia> zakim, close the queue
17:40:58 <Zakim> ok, aleecia, the speaker queue is closed
17:41:08 <dsinger> brendan: notes that the term 'tracking' is used in normative TPE text. it should be included
17:41:17 <aleecia> q?
17:41:22 <aleecia> ack rachelthomas
17:41:23 <WileyS> It should be removed from both document titles then as well
17:41:24 <Zakim> -BrendanIAB?
17:41:32 <jmayer> The term "tracking" isn't substantively used in the compliance document. If it remains in the TPE document, it's on the way out.
17:41:53 <jmayer> New points please, Rachel.
17:41:54 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:41:59 <BrendanIAB> Zakim, IPCaller is probably me
17:41:59 <Zakim> +BrendanIAB?; got it
17:42:05 <dsinger> rachel: is concerned about a strategy of removing the word from the text, rather than defining it. We are overall defining what it means to 'not track'.
17:42:16 <laurengelman> what it means to track is what the spec says you cannot do when a user sends DNT:1
17:42:22 <BrendanIAB> jmayer - it's used 296 times in the TPE
17:42:23 <aleecia> thank you, Rachel
17:42:27 <npdoty> I think BrendanIAB's point is that "tracking" isn't used in the compliance document, but is used in the TPE document which expects a normative definition from Compliance
17:42:32 <Chris_IAB> The word "track" is in the Charter; "Do-not-track" is also in the charter.
17:42:45 <efelten_> The TPE uses terms like "tracking status resource" which is a precisely defined term.  That contains the word "tracking" but not in an undefined sense.
17:42:47 <jmayer> Brendan, as you pointed out, the majority of those instances are in a defined term that happens to include the word "tracking."
17:43:05 <BerinSzoka> +1 to Rachel
17:43:06 <WileyS> 'Tracking" Preference Expression & 'Tracking' Compliance and Scope
17:43:06 <jchester2> For me, many of the industry have tried over next few weeks to undermine this process, by adding proposals designed to weaken the final outcome.
17:43:07 <dsinger> …absolutely hears that we can change things if the context changes, but notes the context that we're on a short time-frame, and we're trying to close down, not open up, so that's the context, and that the chairs might decide, and that opportunities to revisit may be limited
17:43:18 <npdoty> q?
17:43:19 <laurengelman> we cannot rewrite history
17:43:22 <Brooks> Can someone tell me if the title is normative text?
17:43:38 <Lmastria-DAA> +1 Brooks
17:43:40 <WileyS> Appears "Normative" in context to me...
17:44:32 <dsinger> aleecia: we knew the schedule was aggressive when we started; we hoped DNT could relevant for the EU context, and it's also seeing implementation in browsers, and users are seeing something that does comparatively little right now, and the chairs do get yelled at for beging behind
17:44:39 <dsinger> s/beging/being/
17:44:42 <npdoty> I think this is just a curiosity, but I don't think the titles of documents add normative requirements on implementers
17:44:44 <BrendanIAB> jmayer - compound form still requires that both terms be defined.  Else, why not refer to it as the "Ablative Preference Expression"?
17:44:51 <Chris_IAB> efelten, the group is called the TRACKING Protection Working Group (top of the Charter)
17:45:00 <dsinger> rachel: the EU context is not being answered directly in the WG, but in the global considerations
17:45:08 <ifette> +1
17:45:18 <efelten_> That's not a normative part of the spec.
17:45:27 <Walter> rigo: I would agree
17:45:28 <rigo> q+ to talk about global considerations
17:45:35 <WileyS> Nick, seriously?  You feel its appropriate to have two documents that start with the term "Tracking" and never define it?  I'm not seeing how that is rational to expect.
17:45:40 <rigo> ack ri
17:45:41 <jmayer> If you'd like to call it something without the word "tracking," like "DNT Protocol Preference Expression," totally fine by me.
17:45:42 <dsinger> aleecia: some things are happening in the EU because we're late, and there is talk of a workshop and a non-normative document right now
17:46:00 <dsinger> (queue jumping to Rigo)
17:46:07 <WileyS> jmayer, DNT carries the term Tracking - remove it completely or define it.
17:46:12 <Walter> npdoty: I think we may indeed get to the point where we can not postpone defining tracking any further
17:46:21 <ifette> Perhaps this is not the right venue to solve global policy issues
17:46:25 <npdoty> WileyS, I wasn't taking any position, I was responding to the question of whether document titles were normative text, which I pointed out was a curiosity
17:46:31 <Lmastria-DAA> +1 ifette
17:46:48 <Walter> ifette: the web is worldwide...
17:46:51 <berinszoka_> berinszoka_ has joined #dnt
17:47:00 <Chris_IAB> efelten, I could find over 30 instances of the word "track" or "tracking" on this group's Charter page... Not all are part of terms that have been defined by this working group.  Taking it out of the spec, would to me, seem like we need to re-charter.
17:47:03 <jmayer> We've been over this many, many times: the documents do not need to define the magic word tracking. If you need a definition, tracking is whatever the documents say you can't do.
17:47:05 <WileyS> Nick, I don't believe they are directly but in context they are (as you're basically saying "this document titled XYZ requires these rules be followed")
17:47:10 <dsinger> rigo: there is some pressure from the EU from high up, and they were talking in transatlantic talks.  Don't forget the next step is candidate, which is implement and find out what goes wrong etc.  Then we have the Global Consids document, and if we can't make it, because of mis-match, we'll come back
17:47:22 <npdoty> q?
17:47:24 <ifette> s/ifette:/ifette,/
17:47:25 <jmayer> That doesn't in the slightest turn on whether the magic word "tracking" is in the document title or defined phrases.
17:47:30 <WileyS> jmayer, feel free to put forward that definition then :-)
17:47:33 <rigo> Global considerations will be a Task Force
17:47:34 <jmayer> Anyways, off to Corporations again.
17:47:38 <rigo> of this Working Group
17:47:46 <dwainberg> q+
17:47:48 <jmayer> I'm putting forward that we actually get work done.
17:48:00 <Zakim> -Jonathan_Mayer
17:48:01 <dsinger> aleecia: no, the chairs don't 'decide'; we'll have objections come from the group, and the chairs try to find the least objectionable (i.e. the closest to consensus)
17:48:14 <dsinger> …finally: when we get to last call, how fixed is the text?
17:49:28 <ifette> Aleecia, you said one of two things. Either we do another LC or we make minor tweaks and move forward. There is a third option, which is that it may simply be unworkable
17:49:33 <dsinger> …we need another draft: the LC draft goes out for wider review than the 90 in the WG, and we'll get comments from other WGs, from the world, and from implementers. That's all useful feedback. We might do another LC document, if we weren't even close; or if we feel we can fix the issues, we go through the process to final rec.
17:49:46 <dsinger> ….we might have 2nd or even multiple LC drafts
17:49:53 <npdoty> Process info on Last Call is available here: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
17:50:21 <dsinger> …there is lots of opportunity for feedback from WGs, external bodies, implementers, and so on: we test and make sure it's do-able
17:50:23 <npdoty> q?
17:50:38 <tlr> nope
17:50:40 <npdoty> I think that was a fine description of Last Call
17:50:45 <dsinger> …comments from the staff? No
17:51:31 <Chris_IAB> jmayer, most if not all of the ad industry is not in agreement with your position that we should not define track and tracking here in this group.  In so much as we are part of this working group, there is disagreement.  Just wanted to note that for the official record.
17:51:37 <dsinger> dwainberg: on the process, (q was closed), that was helpful. 2 questions: what is the standard for the least strong objections?that they cannot live, or the substantive merits of the objections.
17:51:59 <dsinger> aleecia: the chairs do try to judge the strength of argument, not the volume
17:52:24 <Chris_IAB> we don't see this as a "magic" term.  It's just a term, like other terms.  Just needs to be defined precisely to give this group's work context and meaning.
17:52:31 <berinszoka_> Aleecia, could you elaborate briefly on the criteria by which you assess objections?
17:52:38 <dsinger> aleecia: stating 'we can't live with this' is not strong, arguments need to be grounded in technical merits; the document tries to make this clear
17:52:44 <tlr> zakim, unmute me
17:52:45 <Zakim> Thomas should no longer be muted
17:52:52 <dsinger> aleecia: the chairs are seeking to find the consensus of the group.
17:53:01 <tlr> zakim, mute me
17:53:01 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
17:53:05 <dsinger> tlr: notes we are off a discussion on unlinkable
17:53:39 <dsinger> dwainberg: on implementations: I get a sense of judging success of a technical spec.,m but what criteria apply to the compliance document?
17:53:39 <npdoty> I believe we have an issue/action postponed about exit criteria for CR
17:53:44 <berinszoka_> great question! the more clear we are now about criteria, the fewer problems we'll have in the future
17:54:02 <ifette> it's ISSUE-131
17:54:03 <rigo> david: Karl said we have to have it testable. I think that is a very important question!
17:54:04 <ifette> ISSUE-131?
17:54:04 <trackbot> ISSUE-131 -- What should implementations look like to satisfy our exit criteria for CR? -- raised
17:54:04 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/131
17:54:04 <tlr> correct
17:54:12 <dsinger> aleecia: ifette has an open question 'what are our exit criteria for the compliance document' which is excellent to consider
17:54:16 <rigo> q?
17:54:26 <dsinger> (back to Q) unlinkable data
17:54:32 <aleecia> ack fielding
17:54:47 <Walter> +1
17:54:59 <dsinger> fielding: First, there is no direct dependency of unlinkability on tracking; there is one for the completion of the spec.
17:55:43 <dsinger> …second, on what thomas was saying, there is not a defn right now, but that's not in accordance with the charter, and that would be a problem
17:56:29 <rigo> roy, would you work with me on such a definition. We need it for DNT:0
17:56:33 <dsinger> …browser UIs use that one word right now, and I can't continue with this tour which feels like the compliance document doesn't define anything useful
17:56:34 <dsinger> '
17:57:10 <dsinger> aleecia: to summarize, sees defining tracking as extremely important, because T stands for Track in DNT
17:57:22 <tlr> He means that, since the charter is phrased in terms of "tracking", we need to explain how the document responds to that.
17:57:26 <Walter> q+
17:57:31 <tlr> I suggest we move on in the agenda.
17:57:41 <dsinger> …does not see the charter question.  But we had an open question on whether we should use 'do not track' at all; that's postponed
17:57:42 <aleecia> q?
17:57:51 <aleecia> ack WileyS
17:58:06 <aleecia> agenda?
17:58:18 <dsinger> shane: quickly. to refute jmayer's claims that there is a standard, accepted, defn of unlinkability.  keep that in mind
17:58:18 <berinszoka_> wait, Aleecia, did you just suggest that we might reconsider the "Do Not Track" brand?  I think there's a lot to be said for that but, as you point out, it's already being implemented in the field...
17:58:42 <aleecia> close agendum 4
17:58:45 <dsinger> aleecia: maybe we need a term other than 'linkable' as that's a term in use in europe
17:59:02 <dsinger> …by Friday, we'll have DAA text.  We'll have 3 options on the table.
17:59:22 <WileyS> Aleecia - that is not a EU legal term, correct?  I'm familiar with our use of the term in our work with the A29WP with respect anonymizing search log data - is that what you're referring to?  If yes, the A29WP put out an opinion paper on this topic specifically.
17:59:22 <dsinger> …3.6.1, 3.6.2, and action-286 output.
17:59:27 <npdoty> BerinSzoka, that was suggested early on (a different brand) with the acknowledged limitation that "Do Not Track" is already a popular term
17:59:57 <dsinger> …monday, we'll put out a request to review, and see if there is anything they don't expect. after that, we''ll go through the call for objections process
18:00:08 <fielding> TPWG charter is at "http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/charter.html"
18:00:17 <dsinger> …if we can reduce before the call for objections, great.
18:00:32 <dsinger> …but at this point, we have 3.6.1 vs. 3.6.2
18:00:44 <npdoty> Zakim, open the queue
18:00:44 <Zakim> ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is open
18:00:52 <dsinger> …oops, two more pieces of this agenda item.
18:01:10 <aleecia> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0652.html
18:01:15 <berinszoka_> again, I think there's a lot to be said for rebranding, but... if that's still a live item, I hope we'll give it the time it deserves
18:01:17 <dsinger> …one is regulatory hooks, action ???
18:01:50 <dsinger> …one is the option of silence; however, power is back on the east coast
18:01:56 <aleecia> zakim, open the queue
18:01:56 <Zakim> ok, aleecia, the speaker queue is open
18:01:57 <rigo> roy, the trouble of the definition of tracking is that tracking only covers personal data. And to cover, we would have to define personal data. And Wham you're back to an impossible definition and we would say cookies, IP address etc are not/are personal data. => terrible
18:01:58 <fielding> action-286?
18:01:59 <trackbot> ACTION-286 -- Brendan Riordan-Butterworth to propose DAA text regarding de-identification (for unlinkability discussion) -- due 2012-11-22 -- OPEN
18:01:59 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/286
18:02:00 <dsinger> …four options are on the table...
18:02:02 <npdoty> action-324?
18:02:05 <trackbot> ACTION-324 -- Aleecia McDonald to compile public compliance commitment options for potential Call -- due 2012-10-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:02:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/324
18:02:10 <npdoty> s/???/324/
18:02:16 <aleecia> q?
18:02:31 <dsinger> …looks like people are thinking or ready for moving on
18:02:49 <Walter> rigo: not necessarily so, I disagree. When you look at the latest definitions floating around in BXL, it is pretty clear that for the most part cookiets etc. are personal data
18:03:00 <WileyS> Aleecia - can you enumerate the 4 options now, please?
18:03:08 <robsherman> I think the end of the thread said that Jonathan and Tom were going to try to combine their proposals.  Did that happen?
18:03:12 <aleecia> q?
18:03:15 <Walter> rigo: also, look at the proposed definition of unlinkable data
18:03:19 <dsinger> aleecia: will be sending the options and question around as final summary, and head towards call for objections here
18:03:21 <WileyS> Aleecia - please see my question above...
18:03:27 <Walter> rigo: which means that anything that does not meet that definition is linkable
18:03:40 <robsherman> Thanks
18:03:44 <tlr> issue-45?
18:03:44 <trackbot> ISSUE-45 -- Companies making public commitments with a "regulatory hook" for US legal purposes -- pending review
18:03:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/45
18:03:45 <dsinger> aleecia: jmayer and Tom were going to combine, but…neither can comment now and we have not seen text. doesn't seem to have happened
18:03:57 <dsinger> …will ping them both in email and see if we can reduce
18:04:03 <aleecia> q?
18:04:11 <dsinger> …it's great to reduce options
18:04:14 <fielding> q+
18:04:25 <rigo> Walter, but we will bicker around what is personal data and what isn't. And that is endless, because you'd have to solve the transatlantic divide. If you reassure me, the better. We will have to define tracking in DNT:0 to make it possible in Europe
18:04:27 <aleecia> ack fielding
18:04:30 <aleecia> +1 david
18:04:39 <susanisrael> wileys i think aleecia posted the link to the 4 options- http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/324
18:04:51 <Zakim> -Chapell
18:04:52 <npdoty> "likes it when we reduce to one [option]" :)
18:05:04 <Walter> rigo: I think we cannot avoid the inevitable, otherwise we'll erode the credibility of the process
18:05:13 <Walter> rigo: but we may have to take this conversation offline
18:05:15 <dsinger> fielding: the 2nd 1/2 of the options seems to assume the response header field, so there is a dependency there
18:05:18 <susanisrael> wileys, i think aleecia posted link to the options though it couldn't hurt to talk through them. http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/324
18:05:25 <rigo> but we can try to avoid it
18:05:36 <Zakim> +chapell
18:05:44 <npdoty> fielding, you're pointing out that one of the options would allow indicating that they don't comply with the Compliance requirements, yeah?
18:05:47 <dsinger> aleecia: if we have a response saying " I don't comply", then saying "any response indicates compliance" is a contradiction.
18:05:47 <amyc> q+
18:05:53 <susanisrael> sorry i repeated myself--i thought the first comment had not appeared.
18:06:24 <tlr> zakim, rachelthomas has left DAAinDC
18:06:24 <Zakim> -RachelThomas; got it
18:06:37 <dsinger> aleecia: two things: Roy will fix the text, and Tom/Jon will be pinged to combine.  one week on that
18:06:41 <aleecia> q?
18:06:43 <npdoty> action: fielding to clarify text around compliance hook options and indications of non-compliance
18:06:43 <trackbot> Created ACTION-337 - Clarify text around compliance hook options and indications of non-compliance [on Roy Fielding - due 2012-11-21].
18:06:44 <aleecia> ack amyc
18:07:12 <dsinger> amyc: on Roy's question, we also discussed some sort of token 'some token to say implementation in process'
18:07:15 <dsinger> q+
18:07:17 <npdoty> action: aleecia to work with tl/jmayer on combining options on compliance hook
18:07:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-338 - Work with tl/jmayer on combining options on compliance hook [on Aleecia McDonald - due 2012-11-21].
18:07:24 <fielding> actually, my point only applies to (2) in Aleecia's message
18:07:29 <dsinger> aleecia: group has shot that down?
18:07:32 <aleecia> ack dsinger
18:07:41 <Zakim> -DavidMc??
18:07:44 <rigo> +1 to dsinger
18:07:51 <ifette> i still support a "testing" state
18:07:53 <tlr> zakim, unmute me
18:07:53 <Zakim> Thomas should no longer be muted
18:07:53 <npdoty> aleecia, I have heard that on the calls, but occasionally hear differently from people offline
18:08:01 <rigo> even P3P had a testing state
18:08:28 <dsinger> dsinger: thinks that it was just a misunderstanding
18:08:39 <dsinger> aleecia: but we heard that industry didn't feel it needed it on a call
18:08:42 <npdoty> aleecia definitely asked on more than one call, and we didn't hear any interest
18:08:54 <dsinger> aleecia: maybe open as a TPE issue
18:09:00 <aleecia> q?
18:09:50 <tlr> zakim, mute me
18:09:50 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
18:09:52 <dsinger> tlr: among the 3 or 4 I have heard express an interest (amy, dave, ian, ??) maybe take on an issue
18:09:52 <npdoty> tlr: hearing interest in a beta flag from amyc, ifette, dsinger -- can one of you define the issue?
18:09:53 <fielding> we have a issue already
18:10:02 <rigo> which one?
18:10:07 <amyc> thanks dsinger
18:10:08 <dsinger> need to link the issue to singer's email on responses
18:10:08 <tlr> if we have one, even better
18:10:22 <tlr> I though we didn't, and wanted to be sure we don't lose this.
18:10:25 <WileyS> Permitted Uses
18:10:36 <aleecia> 6.1.2.6
18:10:46 <aleecia> action-260
18:10:46 <dsinger> aleecia: back on 6.1.2.6 (!), within the compliance, which has an alternative
18:11:00 <fielding> issue-161?
18:11:00 <trackbot> ISSUE-161 -- Do we need a tracking status value for partial compliance or rejecting DNT? -- raised
18:11:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/161
18:11:02 <dsinger> ….from action 260 therte is another text (from Nick)
18:11:03 <aleecia> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#security
18:11:09 <aleecia> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0466.html
18:11:16 <aleecia> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/293
18:11:46 <dsinger> …thinks that these should be put all in one place under the action
18:11:55 <aleecia> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0506.html
18:12:11 <aleecia> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/293
18:12:12 <fielding> under an issue, please
18:12:16 <dsinger> …two possibilities for graduated responses, action 279 and 293; gave examples
18:12:18 <Walter> q+
18:12:18 <npdoty> ah, "partial" compliance, I hadn't thought about that as the beta/testing flag, but maybe it is
18:12:32 <dwainberg> q+
18:12:47 <tlr> action-279, action-293
18:12:56 <tlr> (for tacker's benefit, the dash is required)
18:13:01 <dsinger> …thinks we need to talk through 279 and 293, which are pending review.  does anyone think we're in a different state?
18:13:03 <aleecia> q?
18:13:06 <dsinger> action-279?
18:13:06 <trackbot> ACTION-279 -- Ian Fette to write an explanation of graduated response and a list of explanatory use cases -- due 2012-10-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:13:06 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/279
18:13:07 <aleecia> ack Walter
18:13:22 <Zakim> -AnnaLong
18:13:24 <dsinger> walter: would like to propose some refinements, as the current text(s) have problem
18:13:25 <WileyS> Please do that on the mailing list - will create a 5th option
18:13:36 <tlr> q+
18:13:38 <Walter> will do so
18:13:38 <npdoty> Walter, can you clarify on IRC what the problems are?
18:13:52 <aleecia> q?
18:13:59 <aleecia> ack dwainberg
18:14:04 <aleecia> hi, David!
18:14:07 <Walter> npdoty: there are no limits on retention and no remarks on proportionality
18:14:18 <npdoty> action: walter to propose a refinement to debugging permitted use
18:14:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-339 - Propose a refinement to debugging permitted use [on Walter van Holst - due 2012-11-21].
18:14:33 <dsinger> dwainberg: can we separate grad. response from security/fraud and debugging? since it is only 'preferred' it's not really normative.
18:14:36 <npdoty> walter, I think the minimization limitations are general requirements which apply to all permitted uses
18:14:37 <ifette> q+
18:14:43 <tlr> q- later
18:14:50 <Walter> npdoty: even then a retention term would be in order
18:15:05 <npdoty> s/npdoty:/npdoty,/
18:15:07 <dsinger> aleecia: I think we have a dependency, we need to figure out what is grad. response esp. for security/fraud.  it's not clear if grad. response is ssensible here
18:15:14 <rigo> q+ to say that graduate response is just an application of the already agreed principles
18:15:17 <Walter> npdoty: if only as non-normative text
18:15:19 <dsinger> s/ssensible/sensible/
18:15:38 <npdoty> Walter, worth looking at the existing options and minimization about retention before proposing a new option
18:15:39 <dsinger> dwainberg: but the text only says 'preferred' (which is not a must)
18:16:04 <dsinger> aleecia: if we believe that there is nothing sensible about grad. response, we should delete the text entirely.
18:16:19 <npdoty> dwainberg, aleecia, it's possible that we can define the debugging permitted use without a definition of "graduated response"
18:16:19 <Walter> npdoty: also boils down to whether we repeat stuff or not, I'm currently of the opinion that implementers will not familiarise themselves with the text as a whole so some redundancy is in order
18:16:27 <aleecia> q?
18:16:27 <dsinger> …we had an understanding what that means for debugging, but we're less clear on sec/fraud
18:16:35 <aleecia> ack ifette
18:16:36 <ifette> ifette: How is it that here we have a dependency but that elsewhere (see our discussion at the beginning of the call on unlinkable data) we think we can define the term as a separate exercise from its usage in the document
18:16:37 <dsinger> …suggests a defn before we move through
18:16:40 <fielding> +1 ifette's text on graduated response
18:16:43 <npdoty> ... for example, it's only non-normative in my updated text on debugging: http://npdoty.name/w3c/middle-way#debugging
18:16:45 <dsinger> ifette: see thoughts in IRC
18:16:52 <fielding> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0506.html
18:18:18 <npdoty> Walter, agree that we need to settle on repetitions, though I personally think we can separate that question (and probably leave it to the editors)
18:18:31 <fielding> well, "graduated response" is not an independent term, since it depends on context to have any meaning at all
18:18:40 <dsinger> aleecia: people were having a hard time imagining how grad response could be even relevant to sec/fraud, whereas on unlinkable we have different issues (is it a get out of jail free pass?), so that makes a big difference to the discussion
18:18:48 <aleecia> q?
18:18:51 <tlr> ack thomas
18:18:53 <aleecia> ack Thomas
18:19:00 <tlr> zakim, mute me
18:19:00 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
18:19:01 <dsinger> tlr: an admin question, what issue?
18:19:05 <Lmastria-DAA> +1
18:19:10 <Lmastria-DAA> +q
18:19:10 <rigo> Graduated response (ACTION-279)
18:19:12 <aleecia> q?
18:19:14 <aleecia> ack rigo
18:19:14 <Zakim> rigo, you wanted to say that graduate response is just an application of the already agreed principles
18:19:19 <Walter> npdoty: and also, in my experience a mere data minimisation requirement doesn't work in the real world, implementers will need additional guidance
18:19:39 <npdoty> I thought ifette's point in that email was that "graduated response" *could* be defined separately, and then explained in context for both debugging and security, perhaps with non-normative examples
18:19:58 <aleecia> Thomas, that's ISSUE-24	OPEN	Possible exemption for fraud detection and defense
18:20:04 <tlr> thanks.
18:20:10 <fielding> closest would be issue-24?
18:20:14 <tlr> issue-24?
18:20:14 <trackbot> ISSUE-24 -- Possible exemption for fraud detection and defense -- open
18:20:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/24
18:20:17 <aleecia> It is, yes
18:20:18 <susanisrael> i understood ifette's point the same way npdoty did.
18:20:23 <ifette> npdoty, i agree it would be cleaner were it defined separately and explained in context. I was just saying that we seem to be taking a different approach here than w.r.t. unlinkable data
18:20:33 <ifette> rigo, sounds good
18:20:43 <dsinger> rigo: maybe no issue, but action 279.  thinks we have violent agreement; the issue is that grad. response as a term is saying what youre kinda expected to do under the data minim and relevance requirements, it's a spelling out of the general principle.  the text does the trick; whether we have the term, is less important.
18:20:48 <aleecia> q?
18:20:55 <aleecia> ack Lmastria-DAA
18:21:04 <npdoty> ifette, hmm, I thought you were making an opposite point in email and over voice
18:21:09 <aleecia> zakim, close queue
18:21:09 <Zakim> ok, aleecia, the speaker queue is closed
18:21:28 <aleecia> yes, was short hand and a reference to the game "monopoly"
18:21:49 <dsinger> lmastria: worth pointing out: thinks none of us are here to get out of jail, or other similar purposes; can we stop using this as a short-hand? we're all doing this delb. and in good faith; the term doesn't help us move ahead
18:21:58 <Walter> Actually, I don't mind "get out of jail" because for truly unlinkable data I don't mind if you ignore the spec
18:22:10 <aleecia> q?
18:22:12 <dsinger> aleecia: apologizes and references monopoly
18:22:23 <ifette> npdoty, in email I was saying that this particular term could be better defined _in the document_ as a separate term. That's a different matter to "when in the discussions of the WG, in relation to other discussions, do we talk about its definition"
18:22:33 <dsinger> aleecia: skipping to end of agenda and admin
18:22:43 <dsinger> …first, next week is t'giving in the US
18:22:45 <JC> +1
18:22:45 <ifette> I will not be able to join a call next Wed
18:22:49 <npdoty> Topic: admin
18:22:49 <ifette> I will be traveling for thanksgiving
18:22:52 <Chris_IAB> -1
18:22:53 <ifette> -1
18:22:53 <robsherman> -1
18:22:54 <ChrisPedigoOPA> -1
18:22:54 <Joanne> -1
18:22:55 <laurengelman> -1
18:22:55 <adrianba> -1
18:22:56 <WileyS> -1
18:22:57 <hwest> -1
18:22:58 <dwainberg> -1
18:22:58 <jeffwilson> -1
18:22:58 <Chapell> -1
18:22:59 <dsinger> …-1 - you cannot join
18:22:59 <Brooks> -1
18:23:00 <cOlsen> -1
18:23:00 <dsinger> -1
18:23:02 <marc> -1
18:23:03 <johnsimpson> +1
18:23:04 <Chris_IAB> -100
18:23:06 <Lmastria-DAA> -1
18:23:06 <rigo> -1
18:23:07 <jchester2> +1
18:23:07 <amyc> -1
18:23:07 <Walter> +1
18:23:08 <peter-4As> -1
18:23:09 <eberkower> +1
18:23:09 <vinay> -1
18:23:10 <npdoty> +1
18:23:10 <efelten_> +1
18:23:13 <Simon> +1
18:23:16 <fielding> -0
18:23:21 <moneill2> +1
18:23:22 <vincent> +1
18:23:26 <rvaneijk> +1
18:23:27 <Zakim> -dtauerbach
18:23:38 <Chris_IAB> -5 in this room at DAA
18:23:39 <susanisrael> -0
18:23:48 <dsinger> aleecia: call looks kinda thin
18:23:51 <suegl> -1
18:24:00 <dsinger> …cancel call?  will talk to staff and conclude
18:24:22 <ifette> Also cannot attend hte workshop. It's literally the day after the biggest travel weekend in the US...
18:24:23 <fielding> fyi, -1/-0/+0/+1 are from Apache
18:24:29 <WileyS> Aleecia - X-mas and New years Holidays?  Another face-to-face?
18:24:35 <dsinger> aleecia: the week after is the w3c workshop in Berkeley (beyond DNT) 26/27 and then we call on the 28th
18:24:44 <dsinger> how about the 28th?
18:24:45 <dsinger> +1
18:24:46 <Walter> -1
18:24:46 <JC> +1
18:24:46 <ifette> -1
18:24:46 <Joanne> +1
18:24:47 <johnsimpson> =1
18:24:47 <efelten_> +1
18:24:47 <vinay> +1
18:24:48 <jchester2> +1
18:24:48 <vincent> +1
18:24:48 <WileyS> +1
18:24:49 <jeffwilson> +1
18:24:50 <ChrisPedigoOPA> -0
18:24:50 <Brooks> +1
18:24:51 <moneill2> +1
18:24:51 <adrianba> +1
18:24:51 <robsherman> +1
18:24:51 <npdoty> can you make a call on the 28th? -1 if you can't, +1 if you can
18:24:52 <dwainberg> -0
18:24:52 <fielding> +1
18:24:53 <npdoty> +1
18:24:54 <Lmastria-DAA> what is the agenda for berkeley?
18:24:54 <susanisrael> +1
18:24:54 <Chapell> -1
18:24:55 <tlr> -1
18:24:56 <peter-4As> +1
18:24:56 <cOlsen> +1
18:24:57 <eberkower> +1
18:24:58 <Simon> -1
18:25:01 <amyc> +1
18:25:05 <johnsimpson> +1
18:25:06 <rvaneijk> -1
18:25:06 <BrendanIAB> +1
18:25:11 <Chris_IAB> +/-1
18:25:12 <rigo> Lmastria-DAA: "out of jail" is not intended as an offense (my apologies) and a term we use regularly on this side of the Atlantic without further afterthought
18:25:19 <rigo> -1
18:25:23 <marc> -1
18:25:27 <johnsimpson> yep. can't type...
18:25:43 <Walter> Lmastria-DAA: indeed, it is merely a reference to the Monopoly board game
18:25:50 <npdoty> s/Lmastria-DAA:/lmastria-daa,/
18:26:01 <laurengelman> :)
18:26:19 <WileyS> Aleecia - thoughts on X-mas and New Years weeks?  Another face-to-face?
18:26:34 <amyc> and new schedule?
18:26:39 <dsinger> aleecia: as we start to go through the calls for objections etc., we'll be creating a new 'announce' mailing list for announcements that are not for discussion, so you can see the next steps etc., what's officially happening
18:26:48 <ifette> Current charter expires 1/2013
18:26:49 <dsinger> aleecia: no f2f until the new year,
18:26:53 <Zakim> -hwest
18:26:56 <ifette> Will we discuss charter issues?
18:26:58 <WileyS> Aleecia - understood - I meant do you expect another f2f at all - in 2013
18:27:06 <Chris_IAB> SO, another f2f next year?
18:27:09 <ifette> Putting it out there that I would object to another extension w/o group discussion on scope and progress
18:27:13 <dsinger> aleecia: thomas is cleanign up actions and issues, and so on.
18:27:18 <WileyS> Aleecia - would be helpful for me to know ASAP for budget planning purposes
18:27:22 <Chapell> +1 to Ian and charter renewal
18:27:28 <rigo> there will be a F2F on Global considerations in January. Kimon is planning for a nice southern european location
18:27:28 <Zakim> -pedermagee
18:27:30 <Zakim> -dsriedel
18:27:35 <Zakim> -[FTC.a]
18:27:35 <dsinger> aleecia: we are adjourned.  scribe faints
18:27:36 <Zakim> -robsherman
18:27:36 <Zakim> -Simon
18:27:38 <Zakim> -efelten_
18:27:38 <Zakim> -Joanne
18:27:38 <Zakim> -moneill2
18:27:38 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
18:27:40 <Zakim> -aleecia
18:27:42 <npdoty> ifette, sure, definitely follow up with us
18:27:44 <Zakim> -BrendanIAB?
18:27:48 <Zakim> -Thomas
18:27:49 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
18:27:50 <Zakim> -Rigo
18:27:51 <Zakim> -Chris_Pedigo
18:27:53 <Zakim> -[Microsoft.a]
18:27:54 <Zakim> -vincent
18:27:55 <Zakim> -johnsimpson
18:27:56 <Zakim> -[Google]
18:27:56 <Zakim> -eberkower
18:27:56 <Zakim> -[DAAinDC]
18:27:56 <Zakim> -brooks
18:27:56 <Zakim> -[Apple]
18:27:57 <Zakim> -jchester2
18:27:57 <Zakim> -laurengelman
18:27:59 <Zakim> -KeithScarborough
18:28:00 <Zakim> -adrianba
18:28:02 <Zakim> -susanisrael
18:28:03 <Zakim> -chapell
18:28:03 <Zakim> -jeffwilson
18:28:03 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
18:28:04 <Zakim> -fielding
18:28:04 <Zakim> -vinay
18:28:10 <Zakim> -PhilPearce
18:28:16 <Walter> rigo: my vote would go to someplace in France, the other countries will have too many riots
18:28:18 <npdoty> Zakim, list attendees
18:28:18 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been [Mozilla], Thomas, Rigo, rvaneijk, aleecia, +1.202.344.aaaa, BrendanIAB?, ChrisMejia, MarcGroman, DWainberg, loumastria, PeterKosmalla,
18:28:21 <Zakim> ... suegl, +1.714.852.aabb, +1.650.465.aacc, +1.703.265.aadd, fielding, jeffwilson, ifette, DavidMc??, +1.202.296.aaee, +1.206.658.aaff, jchester2, Walter, KeithScarborough, amy_c,
18:28:21 <Zakim> ... npdoty, dsinger, [FTC], hefferjr, +1.650.690.aagg, +1.415.728.aahh, robsherman, vinay, +1.301.351.aaii, moneill2, dtauerbach, +1.919.388.aajj, WileyS, Craig_Spiezle, vincent,
18:28:26 <Zakim> ... +aakk, Chris_Pedigo, +1.303.661.aall, +1.646.654.aamm, dsriedel, MikeZaneis, +1.215.286.aann, Chapell, susanisrael, brooks, Jonathan_Mayer, eberkower, AnnaLong, Simon,
18:28:26 <Zakim> ... laurengelman, +aaoo, JC, pedermagee, [Microsoft], adrianba, PhilPearce, johnsimpson, hwest, +1.609.258.aapp, efelten_, +1.415.520.aaqq, Joanne, RachelThomas
18:28:26 <Zakim> -suegl
18:28:26 <Zakim> -[FTC]
18:28:34 <Zakim> -Walter
18:28:34 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has left #dnt
18:28:43 <npdoty> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:28:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/14-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
18:28:54 <Zakim> -npdoty
18:29:43 <npdoty> meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group teleconference
18:29:45 <npdoty> chair: aleecia
18:29:46 <Phil_Pearce> Phil_Pearce has joined #dnt
18:29:56 <npdoty> Regrets- me
18:30:09 <npdoty> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:30:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/14-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
18:30:29 <Zakim> -hefferjr
18:31:24 <Phil_Pearce> +1 +1 I can make wednesday call dates (sorry late joining irc). Thanks, Phil.
18:35:43 <rigo> rigo has left #dnt
18:42:20 <Zakim> -Craig_Spiezle
18:42:29 <tlr> zakim, who is on the phone?
18:42:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see WileyS
18:42:32 <tlr> zakim, drop WileyS
18:42:32 <Zakim> WileyS is being disconnected
18:42:38 <efelten_> efelten_ has left #dnt
18:47:33 <tl> tl has joined #dnt
18:56:23 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt