IRC log of dnt on 2013-04-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:50:45 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:50:45 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:50:47 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:50:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #dnt
15:50:49 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
15:50:49 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:50:50 [trackbot]
Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:50:50 [trackbot]
Date: 24 April 2013
15:50:56 [npdoty]
Zakim, this will be 87225
15:50:56 [Zakim]
ok, npdoty; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
15:51:04 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:51:05 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has not yet started, npdoty
15:51:06 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, efelten, npdoty, kulick, schunter, tlr, hober, mischat, wseltzer, trackbot
15:52:17 [npdoty]
15:52:30 [npdoty]
agenda+ TPE Working Draft
15:52:43 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:52:51 [Zakim]
15:52:56 [npdoty]
agenda+ issue-195 flows for out of band consent
15:53:03 [Zakim]
15:53:11 [schunter]
Zakim, ??P1 is schunter
15:53:11 [Zakim]
+schunter; got it
15:53:18 [npdoty]
agenda+ issue-168 sub-services signaling transferred exception
15:53:28 [npdoty]
agenda+ next meeting
15:53:50 [rigo]
rigo has joined #dnt
15:54:38 [Zakim]
+ +1.609.258.aaaa - is perhaps efelten?
15:54:57 [efelten]
Zakim, aaaa is me
15:54:57 [Zakim]
sorry, efelten, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
15:56:01 [kulick]
Zakim, aaaa is efelten
15:56:01 [Zakim]
sorry, kulick, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
15:56:04 [rvaneijk]
rvaneijk has joined #dnt
15:57:18 [WaltM_Comcast]
WaltM_Comcast has joined #DNT
15:57:19 [eberkower]
eberkower has joined #dnt
15:57:50 [Zakim]
15:58:20 [aleecia]
aleecia has joined #dnt
15:58:28 [Zakim]
15:58:38 [Chris_IAB]
Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
15:59:19 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
15:59:33 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.347.aabb
15:59:42 [prestia]
prestia has joined #dnt
15:59:49 [Zakim]
15:59:58 [Zakim]
16:00:12 [paulohm]
paulohm has joined #dnt
16:00:26 [Zakim]
16:00:29 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.326.aacc
16:00:47 [aleecia]
(took a few tries to join)
16:01:07 [npdoty]
Zakim, aacc may be [FTC]
16:01:07 [Zakim]
+[FTC]?; got it
16:01:17 [aleecia]
zakim, who is on the call?
16:01:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see kulick, schunter, efelten?, eberkower, npdoty, +1.202.347.aabb, Fielding, rvaneijk, Aleecia, [FTC]?
16:01:19 [paulohm]
Zakim aacc is paulohm
16:01:26 [Zakim]
16:01:28 [prestia]
Zakim, aabb is prestia
16:01:28 [Zakim]
+prestia; got it
16:01:34 [npdoty]
Zakim, [FTC] has paulohm
16:01:36 [Zakim]
+paulohm; got it
16:01:57 [Zakim]
16:01:57 [aleecia]
I can scribe but not talk much
16:02:02 [kulick]
Topic: intro
16:02:03 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
16:02:04 [schunter]
16:02:05 [Joanne]
Joanne has joined #DNT
16:02:08 [npdoty]
scribenick: kulick
16:02:15 [npdoty]
16:02:17 [aleecia]
(even better!)
16:02:20 [kulick]
schunter: TPE call only today
16:02:42 [npdoty]
yes, thanks kulick! yay for volunteers
16:02:45 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
16:02:47 [kulick]
... let's get started on discussed
16:02:48 [Zakim]
+ +1.916.641.aadd
16:02:59 [kulick]
TOPIC: TPE working draft
16:02:59 [hefferjr]
hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:03:04 [kj]
kj has joined #dnt
16:03:16 [Zakim]
16:03:18 [Joanne]
Zakim aadd is Joanne
16:03:20 [kulick]
schunter: if you have more points to discuss please send to group
16:03:26 [aleecia]
request: please send the diffs and a deadline for comments to the non-discussion mailing list. Seems like exactly what it's for.
16:03:27 [Zakim]
16:03:32 [Zakim]
16:03:32 [David_MacMillan]
David_MacMillan has joined #dnt
16:03:35 [sidstamm]
Zakim, Mozilla has sidstamm
16:03:35 [Zakim]
+sidstamm; got it
16:03:36 [npdoty]
required, and, roughly every 3 months
16:03:38 [kulick]
... must publish working draft every 8 weeks/2 months, we are overdue right now
16:03:39 [Richard_comScore]
Richard_comScore has joined #dnt
16:03:44 [schunter]
16:03:51 [kulick]
... correction, every 3 months
16:03:57 [Joanne]
Zakim, aadd is Joanne
16:03:57 [Zakim]
+Joanne; got it
16:04:03 [schunter]
16:04:20 [kulick]
... any major comments on plan wrt pushing working draft out
16:04:22 [JC]
JC has joined #DNT
16:04:25 [aleecia]
…other than last week, I assume
16:04:30 [Zakim]
16:04:40 [kulick]
... no comments recognized
16:04:43 [Wileys]
Wileys has joined #DNT
16:04:51 [Zakim]
16:04:58 [fielding]
aleecia, should we update your affiliation in the Acks?
16:05:05 [schunter]
16:05:07 [kulick]
... we tried to address major comments from last week. if you feel they weren't addressed please send again
16:05:08 [npdoty]
aleecia, I meant to follow up with you yesterday, I'm not sure how to address the issue of sentences that may not be true after changes to the draft
16:05:13 [aleecia]
yes, or drop me all together. either way is fine.
16:05:17 [Zakim]
16:05:17 [kulick]
... moving on and diving into the technical issues
16:05:26 [npdoty]
16:05:32 [kulick]
Topic: ISSUE-195 Flows and signals for handling out of band consent
16:05:34 [npdoty]
Zakim, take up agendum 2
16:05:34 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "issue-195 flows for out of band consent" taken up [from npdoty]
16:05:41 [Zakim]
16:05:57 [aleecia]
Nick, the issue was we no longer have tagged what is at consensus and what is not.
16:06:02 [pmagee2023263538]
pmagee2023263538 has joined #dnt
16:06:05 [rigo]
trackbot, ISSUE-195?
16:06:05 [trackbot]
ISSUE-195 -- Flows and signals for handling out of band consent -- open
16:06:05 [trackbot]
16:06:08 [kulick]
... tracking pref sent to site
16:06:12 [kulick]
.... <missed>
16:06:18 [Jack]
Jack has joined #dnt
16:06:55 [Zakim]
16:06:56 [kulick]
... in order to send signal site needs to be able to determine if it have consent from user.
16:06:57 [aleecia]
If people believe the spec is at consent due to lack of disclaimers otherwise, this is a problem (raised more forcefully by Jonathan than by me, but presumably his points have all just gone to ignored.)
16:07:06 [WaltM_Comcast_]
WaltM_Comcast_ has joined #DNT
16:07:11 [Chris_IAB]
just joined via Skype
16:07:13 [Zakim]
16:07:21 [kulick]
... @@@ raised a concern
16:07:22 [schunter]
16:07:25 [npdoty]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is Chris_IAB
16:07:25 [Zakim]
+Chris_IAB; got it
16:07:26 [Chris_IAB]
btw- not easy to join today-- kept getting an error message
16:07:27 [aleecia]
I agree with Matthias that a global "not at consent" disclaimer is unduly broad.
16:07:37 [Zakim]
16:07:43 [aleecia]
Chris, I had to try a few times too, but did get in.
16:07:46 [efelten]
16:07:58 [kulick]
Ronan: if deter cannot be made in real time then signal will be sent that out of band consent will be gathered later
16:08:10 [kulick]
... <missed late part>
16:08:24 [fielding]
aleecia, changes were made to the SOTD in the last two days to address the comments
16:08:25 [rigo]
16:08:31 [aleecia]
Nick, I think one of the goals is to document what is, and is not, at consensus. But we appear to have lost that in the document. That is my point. Not "things could change"
16:08:34 [schunter]
16:08:44 [npdoty]
... data could not be used, just collected and retained until consent is determined
16:08:48 [kulick]
schunter: issues is out of band consent is not available immediately
16:09:03 [schunter]
16:09:04 [kulick]
... and 3rd parties
16:09:09 [npdoty]
q+ to ask if out-of-band consent is typically retrospective
16:09:12 [schunter]
ack ef
16:09:15 [kulick]
ronan: I would not include 3rd parties
16:09:25 [kulick]
ed: want to know more about implementation scenario
16:09:28 [samsilberman]
samsilberman has joined #dnt
16:09:31 [Zakim]
16:09:45 [fielding]
16:09:52 [dan_auerbach]
dan_auerbach has joined #dnt
16:10:03 [Zakim]
+ +1.781.482.aaee
16:10:08 [aleecia]
Roy, glad to hear it; do we have a deadline for review? Or is it at some arbitrary time suddenly things are decided to not have attracted comment? If there is a deadline, it would be spiffy for Matthais to send that to the official dlist
16:10:28 [samsilberman]
zakim, aaee is samsilberman
16:10:28 [Zakim]
+samsilberman; got it
16:10:34 [kulick]
... how would user be notified later. if youi could lett know later, why not now? ... secondly, how would they be notified later?
16:10:51 [kulick]
Ronan: <sorry, missed responses>
16:11:06 [fielding]
aleecia, ask the chair ;-)
16:11:19 [dan_auerbach]
16:11:22 [aleecia]
16:11:44 [rigo]
big vacuum cleaner for 48 hours to determine what you can keep
16:11:54 [npdoty]
... might have determined later (based on being sent the IP addresses later that night, for example) that a user has given consent
16:12:10 [kulick]
ed: Still don't understand why you you need to keep data longer?
16:12:27 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:12:36 [kulick]
schunter: let's not get into the 48 hours discussion.
16:12:52 [kulick]
ed: this is about servicing the request not retaining data
16:13:09 [rigo]
16:13:13 [kulick]
schunter: you have to determine in 200 ms, but if not you dont have a way to honestly answer
16:13:22 [kulick]
... therefore need way to handle that
16:13:31 [kulick]
ed: okay, how is user to find out later
16:13:33 [npdoty]
didn't we propose a separate TSR to avoid having to make all determinations in real-time for the HTTP response?
16:13:38 [schunter]
16:13:40 [kulick]
ronan: this is where control link comes in
16:13:48 [kulick]
... i threw out 72 hours
16:13:55 [dan_auerbach]
"and you're curious
16:13:56 [dan_auerbach]
16:14:05 [fielding]
edit link, at the moment -- anyone with better suggestions for a name are welcome
16:14:07 [kulick]
... notify UA a time to comeback
16:14:10 [dan_auerbach]
means the user agent MUST present this to user, or not
16:14:20 [kulick]
... UA would know and should let user know
16:14:29 [jmayer]
jmayer has joined #dnt
16:14:57 [Zakim]
16:15:01 [kulick]
schunter: 72 hours is extremem case.
16:15:23 [kulick]
... some cases you cannot do inline due to time constriants
16:15:32 [kulick]
... IP address case with many hours is special case
16:15:32 [rvaneijk]
16:15:37 [schunter]
ack np
16:15:37 [Zakim]
npdoty, you wanted to ask if out-of-band consent is typically retrospective
16:15:38 [rigo]
q- later
16:15:44 [kulick]
... most cases are shorter
16:15:52 [kulick]
nick: 2 questions
16:16:03 [dan_auerbach]
16:16:06 [rigo]
npdoty: is oobc always retrospective?
16:16:12 [kulick]
.... is out-of-band (OOB) consent retrospective?
16:16:28 [kulick]
@@@: consent prospective
16:16:37 [rigo]
16:16:56 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
16:17:08 [kulick]
... has to be retropective
16:17:44 [kulick]
nick: <didnt catch>
16:17:57 [schunter]
16:18:02 [kulick]
ronan: would catch in some cases, but not all
16:18:14 [kulick]
... real time might not be possible on some cases
16:18:29 [rigo]
npdoy: TSR can be requested asynchronously, so you can have the TSR manipulated later and have the browser fetch it later
16:18:30 [kulick]
... there are technical hurdles
16:19:13 [dan_auerbach]
why is that so hard?
16:19:22 [schunter]
ack field
16:19:23 [kulick]
... response could be very heavywieght
16:19:28 [dan_auerbach]
to push that info to CDN or whatever front-end system
16:20:18 [aleecia]
+1 on that -- tend not to be heavily into real time needs
16:20:20 [kulick]
Roy: divide problem, certain things we cannot improve on, like surveys to do online response for every request. Problem might not be technical, but rather related to the size/expectations of the company.
16:20:38 [kulick]
... make sense for compliance is the 200 ms response needed.
16:21:13 [cOlsen]
cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:21:13 [kulick]
... would expect related test if you have given consent to be immediate (within normal page request time)
16:21:23 [kulick]
... this should not be hard to solve
16:21:45 [Zakim]
16:21:47 [kulick]
... there is a limit to scale to responses
16:22:09 [kulick]
... many times these are requests to other sites and could create probs
16:22:20 [Zakim]
16:22:29 [kulick]
... i dont see the privacy concern
16:22:30 [efelten]
If we want UA to be able to check these things itself, we shouldn't use a link to an unstructured web page. Want machine-readable.
16:22:56 [kulick]
schunter: i believe ronan's answer ccould be within ~1 min
16:23:03 [aleecia]
(I'm not sure why "we collect this data for this use, regardless of DNT" isn't sufficient for consent right there. I think I am missing the important part of this discussion somewhere.)
16:23:07 [kulick]
... if you are panelist, we keep your data
16:23:12 [kulick]
.... if not, we dont
16:23:22 [kulick]
... completely diff solution to consider
16:23:48 [kulick]
.... if site complies with 1 or 3 all of these OOB consent apply
16:23:51 [fielding]
efelten, why would we need the UA to check this?
16:23:52 [schunter]
16:23:54 [kulick]
16:23:56 [schunter]
ack rv
16:24:05 [npdoty]
it sounds like the problem is that sometimes a measurement company can't identify the user until several hours later (when their panel program reports IP addresses), but will want to add that data to their panel once the identification is made
16:24:12 [efelten]
Ronan suggested a scenario where the UA checks automatically, rather than interrupting the user.
16:24:45 [kulick]
XXX: comliance concern -- cookie ? <missed, sorry>
16:24:58 [schunter]
16:25:00 [kulick]
scribe thanks you
16:25:02 [npdoty]
16:25:04 [rvaneijk]
Ronan is trying to solve a very specific problem. Once it gets in the spec it becomes a generic solution. That does not seem logical to me. Two remarks: - Cookie for the control link looks problematic by itself, for it is not a functional coockie and you will run into the 5.3 requirement in the EU - OOBC determintatinon: alternative solution may be a browser add on for panel members. In my view that would be much more proportional.
16:25:11 [aleecia]
Nick fills in nicely what I'm missing: I hear "panelist" as member of a specific research study, not, say, Nielsen measurement panels. Thank you.
16:25:26 [schunter]
ack rigo
16:25:34 [kulick]
ronan: we cannot force installation of plugins, but we have some contraints
16:25:43 [kulick]
rigo: dont understand why need special treatment
16:25:48 [fielding]
forgot to mention … I don't think the cookie thing is worth specifying -- that can be a dialog with permission of the user in the extremely rare case it would be desired
16:25:51 [kulick]
... falls under 2 existing things
16:25:59 [kulick]
.... 1. shorter collection and use
16:26:05 [aleecia]
16:26:12 [schunter]
16:26:26 [kulick]
.... 2. tracking compl spec says ooob consent trumphs dnt
16:26:45 [kulick]
... therefore, i dont understadn need for additional rule
16:27:06 [kulick]
... it makes it difficult to understand what service collects
16:27:36 [kulick]
ronan: if site response 3, then it must respond 'C' later and that would be less transparant (correct?)
16:27:57 [aleecia]
16:28:05 [Zakim]
16:28:10 [Brooks]
Brooks has joined #dnt
16:28:23 [kulick]
rigo: browser wants to understand the conditions which the data was given
16:28:25 [schunter]
" If an operator is relying on "out of band" consent to disregard a "Do Not Track" instruction, the operator must indicate this consent to the user agent as described in the companion [TRACKING-DNT] document. "
16:29:09 [kulick]
schunter: must be able to represent that received oob consent
16:30:48 [schunter]
Rigo proposes to signal "3" & "short-term use exception". Out of band then trumps these statements for the panelists.
16:31:14 [schunter]
16:31:24 [schunter]
ack dan_auerbach
16:31:28 [kulick]
16:31:28 [npdoty]
+1 that it's less transparent, which is why we added the C requirement
16:31:46 [npdoty]
ronan: it would cover everything we want to do, but is less transparent to the user than a P response
16:31:51 [kulick]
dan: privacy concerns hinge on UA does with this info
16:32:07 [kulick]
.... could UA side speak to what this would look like
16:32:11 [rvaneijk]
16:32:21 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
16:32:49 [kulick]
... Roy mentioned some companies might not be able to address due to size/resources... what happens if the site goes down
16:32:56 [kulick]
... good to keep simple
16:33:10 [kulick]
... what is we say not oob consent mechnism
16:33:22 [kulick]
... ronan, why would this be cripling to you
16:33:28 [Wileys]
16:33:36 [kulick]
... what is the data to suggest a problem
16:33:46 [kulick]
ronan: depends on usage of DNT
16:33:56 [kulick]
... we use panels
16:33:57 [schunter]
An alternative is to define "3" as "we follow third party rules (including the fact that all constraints are relieved if you gave consent)"
16:34:02 [kulick]
they represent large groups
16:34:11 [kulick]
... they represent large groups
16:34:12 [schunter]
In this case, one does not need "C" or "L"
16:34:23 [npdoty]
schunter, that was alex's original request, as ronan points out, it is less transparent
16:34:29 [kulick]
dan: you could normalize for that
16:34:35 [kulick]
ronan: you can't
16:34:47 [schunter]
16:34:48 [kulick]
... affects reliability
16:34:58 [schunter]
ack rv
16:35:02 [kulick]
dan: let's offline this
16:35:25 [rvaneijk]
In terms of proces, I want to mark down that although this discussion is useful there is no way consensus can be assumed.
16:35:27 [Zakim]
16:35:28 [kulick]
UUU: no way consent can be assumed, want to caution about adding tech into public doc
16:35:40 [fielding]
It is an option in the current document -- there is no concern about that being mistaken
16:35:41 [npdoty]
we currently have text in an "Option" box, with the issue box marking it
16:35:51 [kulick]
schunter: there is some text and is marked as option or text under discussion
16:35:55 [npdoty]
16:36:02 [aleecia]
16:36:02 [kulick]
UUU: also could mark as no text
16:36:13 [npdoty]
16:36:29 [kulick]
III: removing is not a solution
16:36:42 [npdoty]
16:36:45 [kulick]
... we need proposals in the spec... we should not remove
16:37:36 [kulick]
fielding: should we havea specific issue for this?
16:37:38 [rigo]
16:37:38 [trackbot]
ISSUE-195 -- Flows and signals for handling out of band consent -- open
16:37:38 [trackbot]
16:37:40 [kulick]
schunter: 195
16:38:01 [kulick]
... what is we remove flags and leave spec as it was
16:38:02 [rigo]
+1 to schunter suggestion
16:38:02 [npdoty]
I actually think we're only using 195 for the possibility of an additional possible-consent flag for oob consent
16:38:25 [rigo]
as soon as we have short term collection permission
16:38:26 [kulick]
... OOB gives general expection, which use 3
16:38:56 [moneill2]
moneill2 has joined #dnt
16:38:58 [kulick]
... ?OOB consent relives of 3rd party rule?
16:39:06 [schunter]
16:39:16 [aleecia]
16:39:18 [npdoty]
16:39:18 [schunter]
16:39:22 [schunter]
ack al
16:39:24 [Zakim]
16:39:45 [moneill2]
zakim, [ipcaller] is me
16:39:45 [Zakim]
+moneill2; got it
16:39:56 [schunter]
16:39:58 [schunter]
ack np
16:39:59 [rigo]
+1 to Aleecia's interpretation
16:40:03 [kulick]
aleecia: short time period is to figure out how handle not that you can do anything until you figure out
16:40:23 [kulick]
nick: the concer with respoinding with '3' is that we lose transparency to user
16:40:28 [aleecia]
we do lose that transparency, but if they've opted in they should know
16:40:42 [dan_auerbach]
+1 to nick
16:40:59 [rigo]
aleecia, I think we have to get a better wording for Short Term Collection and Use
16:41:02 [schunter]
We could mandate "edit" if a site uses OOBC or inline consent.
16:41:04 [fielding]
so the proposal is respond "3" and allow 48 hours to keep the data until consent is determined? (BTW, 48 is just a number I made up)
16:41:09 [kulick]
... need to provide feeback to user and is important
16:41:11 [rigo]
to reflect what you just sayd
16:41:33 [dan_auerbach]
the problem is that they will never know, right?
16:41:37 [kulick]
schunter: roty, proposal is to answer with 3 and use short term retention exception
16:41:40 [npdoty]
fielding, I think it would be respond "3" and retain data for up to a few weeks to determine whether or not you have consent to use the data
16:41:45 [aleecia]
please do! I think you've followed the discussion for the past two years
16:41:47 [kulick]
... 3 means follow 3rd party rules or you have consent
16:41:56 [aleecia]
(I guarantee a lack of time on my part in the next month)
16:42:00 [dan_auerbach]
the scenario nick suggested would look the same to a user who is NOT opted into a panel
16:42:02 [kulick]
... if you use oob consent, you must provide link
16:42:09 [schunter]
16:42:14 [aleecia]
is there a way for users to find out after that they remain in a panel?
16:42:28 [aleecia]
or more to the point, that the company thinks they are part of a panel?
16:42:28 [kulick]
nick?: there would be no way for user to know
16:42:45 [rigo]
16:42:47 [kulick]
schunter: users should be careful about where they provide oob
16:42:47 [schunter]
16:42:50 [schunter]
ack ri
16:42:56 [schunter]
16:43:04 [schunter]
(under consideration)
16:43:04 [aleecia]
Nick's problem is real I'm just looking for any way to make this work and not seeing a better alternative.
16:43:17 [schunter]
- Signal "3" and permitted uses (here: Short-term retention)
16:43:24 [kulick]
rigo: we have to have qualifiers in spec for exception we dont have qualifier yet
16:43:25 [schunter]
- "3" allows processing under OOBC
16:43:31 [kulick]
... and we need one
16:43:37 [schunter]
- If OOBC is used "edit" allows to learn more.
16:44:01 [fielding]
qualifiers are optional, so they aren't going to be sent regardless
16:44:12 [npdoty]
we have an open issue that that list of qualifiers will be updated to match the Compliance document, when we have settled on them
16:44:28 [aleecia]
16:44:42 [hefferjr]
16:44:53 [kulick]
schunter: i suggest sending '3' if allows using oob consent and having to provide link
16:44:59 [schunter]
16:45:00 [aleecia]
I'm wondering how we can get transparency outside DNT, just as consent is out of band
16:45:00 [npdoty]
16:45:05 [schunter]
ack npdoty
16:45:06 [kulick]
... suggest updating text and get feedback
16:45:23 [kulick]
nick: not clear who the solution is better for
16:45:25 [Zakim]
16:45:28 [dan_auerbach]
i have mixed feelings
16:45:29 [schunter]
16:45:29 [kulick]
... <breaking up>
16:45:38 [kulick]
schunter: 1 less signal
16:46:05 [schunter]
16:46:13 [kulick]
scribe's head is about to explode ;)
16:46:19 [aleecia]
rigo, you're wonderful, but don't make me beat you :-)
16:46:25 [fielding]
okay to remove text, though I would prefer to keep the text until after the WG meeting so that we can talk two alternatives at the F2F
16:46:30 [kulick]
schunter: not full agreement... so let's update spec
16:47:00 [kulick]
... let's put both options in spec and discuss at F2F
16:47:04 [dan_auerbach]
i share nick's concerns, but also am concerned that in practice the other flag will also be non-transparent given the complexity proposed and the reliance on user agents to present the info to the user
16:47:06 [schunter]
16:47:10 [fielding]
16:47:17 [schunter]
16:47:29 [rigo]
+1 to fielding to keep text and add markup that there is another option
16:47:42 [kulick]
nick: need anyone else to review?
16:47:53 [aleecia]
I'd like to brainstorm other ways of notice
16:47:57 [aleecia]
But I don't have anything solid here
16:48:08 [aleecia]
Just a sense that perhaps there is another approach for this particular edge case
16:48:09 [schunter]
16:48:10 [kulick]
schunter: roty to provide text
16:48:13 [dan_auerbach]
i think one third alternative
16:48:14 [kulick]
... rest to review
16:48:15 [dan_auerbach]
already on the table
16:48:16 [npdoty]
action: fielding to add text noting the option of not indicating out-of-band consent
16:48:16 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-394 - Add text noting the option of not indicating out-of-band consent [on Roy Fielding - due 2013-05-01].
16:48:22 [dan_auerbach]
is to just not have special consideration for OOBC
16:48:23 [efelten]
16:48:25 [fielding]
happy to add more text if someone wants it -- send to mailing list
16:48:36 [kulick]
Topic: ISSUE-168 What is the correct way for sub-services to signal that they are taking advantage of a transferred exception?
16:49:01 [kulick]
schunter: explain by example
16:49:03 [fielding]
16:49:03 [trackbot]
ISSUE-168 -- What is the correct way for sub-services to signal that they are taking advantage of a transferred exception? -- open
16:49:03 [trackbot]
16:49:05 [rigo]
dan, I think P or L will not alter browser behavior, so rather say 3t
16:49:16 [dan_auerbach]
apologies all, must take off
16:49:26 [Zakim]
16:49:32 [kulick]
... user vists sites and site is using ad network. site says i am okay sending DNT:0 to ad network
16:50:17 [kulick]
... site passes on consent and i will get 'C' signals from ad providers I never interacted with
16:50:23 [rigo]
having P may mean: "give me all data and accept all cookies because I may have consent about it". Which is much more unclear than "I can keep data for 48 hours to determine what I'm allowed to do with it".
16:50:45 [kulick]
... browser will be confused b/c it didnt directly interact
16:51:15 [kulick]
... do we want to tackle it all? or too much or a corner case?
16:51:16 [schunter]
16:51:16 [rigo]
16:51:22 [schunter]
ack rigo
16:52:11 [kulick]
rigo: b/c of ad auction system we need a specific transitory permission for ad networks to deal with the data that was initially given to 1st party
16:52:22 [kulick]
... signaling is transparency issue
16:52:34 [kulick]
... we dont need explicit flag for everything we do
16:52:41 [kulick]
.... hinders deployment
16:52:53 [schunter]
16:52:54 [kulick]
... make more complex with limited gain
16:52:56 [aleecia]
16:52:59 [schunter]
ack aleecia
16:53:01 [kulick]
schunter: other opinions
16:53:18 [kulick]
aleecia: complexity isnt only prob
16:53:24 [kulick]
... transparency is vital
16:53:34 [schunter]
without this feature, browsers can not double-check exception claims.
16:53:37 [npdoty]
16:53:42 [schunter]
ack np
16:53:45 [kulick]
... needs to be some mechanism to represent propogation of consent
16:53:56 [kulick]
nick: imp difficulty is unclear to me
16:54:07 [kulick]
... _ ---__--___
16:54:18 [aleecia]
(Nick breaking up; best scribing ever)
16:54:33 [Wileys]
Works in both directions - bascially in server-to-server transactions that originated in a client-side request, are DNT signals to be conveyed (0 or 1)?
16:54:57 [schunter]
This distinguished "I got the exception from you" vs "somone else gave it to me2
16:54:59 [schunter]
16:55:16 [Wileys]
Nick, many online bids occur server-to-server, not thought client-side 302 redirects.
16:55:23 [kulick]
... destinction are already made between DNT:1 requests
16:55:37 [Zakim]
16:55:39 [paulohm]
paulohm has left #dnt
16:55:48 [kulick]
rigo?: it speaks to sub-services
16:55:51 [Zakim]
16:56:01 [fielding]
16:56:04 [npdoty]
Wileys, but for the response header to the user, only direct to-the-user requests would need to provide the signal
16:56:05 [Wileys]
I'm on the call
16:56:06 [kulick]
... need to exchange sign to sub service and back
16:56:22 [kulick]
schunter: are headers coming from 1st party or sub service
16:56:42 [kulick]
shane: origical ad call froms from exchange itself
16:56:58 [kulick]
... but redirects cold include 302 redirects
16:57:35 [npdoty]
right, the bid participants don't need to send a tk: response header because they're not sending a response to the user at all
16:57:39 [kulick]
... then there are bid participants via server-to-server call and outside of UA interaction
16:58:22 [kulick]
... some participants dont interact with UA at all
16:58:55 [kulick]
rigo: this is why i said we need to invvent transitory perms, but carry limits related to the transitory perms
16:59:01 [npdoty]
we don't have to add anything to the protocol for the cases where server-to-server communication is taking place; it's up to those servers to indicate that the request is DNT:1 or not propogate the communication at all
16:59:06 [kulick]
... signalling back to UA is a different issue
16:59:21 [kulick]
... s/different/another/
16:59:27 [Wileys]
Nick, they should equally be able to convey DNT:0, correct?
16:59:33 [npdoty]
Wileys, right.
16:59:34 [kulick]
schunter: how to approach this then?
16:59:37 [Zakim]
16:59:41 [Wileys]
I'm okay with that
16:59:45 [kulick]
nick: i'm confused.
17:00:15 [fielding]
I think this is too complex for a phone call … we need a whiteboard diagram that shows the sequence of requests to each party and then explain why some get DNT:1 and others get DNT:0 and which ones the user has actually consented. Maybe.
17:00:21 [kulick]
... my understanding that some 3rd parties are geting redirectd and would say they have consent, but for s-2-s calls wont have it?
17:00:33 [kulick]
... i think we might need a placeholder for this issue
17:00:51 [aleecia]
I'm not seeing how DNT:0 propagates in a sane way, ever.
17:00:56 [npdoty]
I agree whiteboard would help, but I think we are managing even so. :)
17:01:01 [kulick]
schunter: are you suggesting have flag and allow for transferring of signal and move on?
17:01:03 [aleecia]
Maybe Roy can convince me with a whiteboard but...
17:01:06 [schunter]
17:01:09 [kulick]
rigo: i am okay with that
17:01:10 [rvaneijk]
17:01:12 [aleecia]
Yah: just shoot it
17:01:15 [schunter]
17:01:19 [schunter]
ack r
17:01:21 [kulick]
schunter: anyone canot live
17:01:21 [kulick]
... with it
17:01:23 [kulick]
17:01:24 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
17:01:24 [kulick]
... ?
17:01:27 [fielding]
I am not convinced.
17:01:34 [npdoty]
maybe we can put it in Pending Review and if when we have a whiteboard conversation we find out something different, we can make a change?
17:01:45 [aleecia]
+1 to Nick's procedural suggestion
17:01:59 [kulick]
HHH: some people might no follow flow and therefore the issue, maybe talk about at f2f
17:02:03 [rvaneijk]
17:02:09 [rigo]
fielding, being not convinced is a privilege reserved only for npdoty
17:02:11 [npdoty]
17:02:16 [fielding]
17:02:18 [rvaneijk]
17:02:20 [kulick]
schunter: follow nick's suggestion and discuss at f2f
17:02:28 [aleecia]
I don't see how this works for users at all. Not fails a little at the edges, but toasts the value of DNT and in unpredictable and invisible ways.
17:02:36 [aleecia]
So I'd love to hear more
17:02:43 [kulick]
whoi is talking ?
17:02:51 [kulick]
17:02:51 [aleecia]
17:02:53 [Wileys]
Roy right now
17:03:11 [kulick]
17:03:35 [kulick]
schunter: shane, would this work?
17:03:46 [npdoty]
I think rather than a complex proposal, we just need to fill in the value currently in the text as "XX"
17:03:50 [kulick]
roy: can shane write up and i'll add to spec
17:03:56 [Zakim]
17:04:01 [kulick]
shane: i'll put togehter a slide for f2f to discuss
17:04:11 [kulick]
... then we can decide on inclusion for TPE
17:04:18 [kulick]
schunter: i like
17:04:46 [kulick]
nick: just need a placeholder. that was my only concern
17:04:54 [kulick]
... i can add the text and pending review
17:05:19 [npdoty]
action: shane to provide a couple slides explanation of exchanges / redirects / server-to-server
17:05:19 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-395 - Provide a couple slides explanation of exchanges / redirects / server-to-server [on Shane Wiley - due 2013-05-01].
17:05:28 [hwest_]
hwest_ has joined #dnt
17:05:29 [Wileys]
17:05:29 [trackbot]
ISSUE-143 -- Activating a Tracking Preference must require explicit, informed consent from a user -- closed
17:05:29 [trackbot]
17:05:33 [kulick]
schnuter: no more issues on agenda
17:05:33 [Wileys]
Can we discuss that today?
17:05:37 [kulick]
... whoa
17:05:45 [Wileys]
17:05:48 [schunter]
17:05:51 [schunter]
ack Wil
17:05:51 [kulick]
... open for any other topics
17:05:56 [npdoty]
action: doty to provide pending review text for signal of transferred/redirected exception (issue 168)
17:05:56 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-396 - Provide pending review text for signal of transferred/redirected exception (issue 168) [on Nick Doty - due 2013-05-01].
17:06:04 [kulick]
shane: can we talk about issue 143
17:06:08 [kulick]
... large issue for us
17:06:18 [kulick]
... tied to who is setting the signal
17:06:20 [fielding]
aleecia, I tend to agree, but maybe it would be possible if we reduced the allowed exception to read-only? i.e., transfer the exception to use existing data, but not to save this request data?
17:06:22 [rigo]
17:06:22 [trackbot]
ISSUE-143 -- Activating a Tracking Preference must require explicit, informed consent from a user -- closed
17:06:22 [trackbot]
17:06:54 [kulick]
... 143 is about if someone other than UA setting DNT signal that they identify themselves as the setter
17:07:01 [rigo]
use https
17:07:05 [npdoty]
issue 143 is closed, with pointers to 194?
17:07:07 [aleecia]
existing data. I'm not sure what you mean (cue HTTP is stateless)
17:07:10 [kulick]
schnuter: hmmmm.
17:07:16 [kulick]
... good issue
17:07:31 [kulick]
shane: maybe we discuss later due to how big it is
17:07:40 [npdoty]
17:07:46 [kulick]
schunter: how can we make this discussion more productive at f2f?
17:08:02 [rigo]
17:08:02 [trackbot]
ISSUE-194 -- How should we ensure consent of users for DNT inputs? -- open
17:08:02 [trackbot]
17:08:24 [fielding]
aleecia, I mean the ad auction is about finding a premium based on past behavioral data -- the current request cannot be added to that data, but older data can be used to make the ad personalized
17:08:25 [kulick]
shane: f2f discussion would be okay. one conern is size addtion to header... no one has a problem with doing it, it is more about the technical imp
17:08:43 [schunter]
17:08:48 [rigo]
17:08:54 [kulick]
schunter: no formal discussion now, but would like to hear feedback here with thots about this
17:09:04 [aleecia]
17:09:06 [kulick]
... unclear how to make this work
17:09:16 [Zakim]
17:09:21 [schunter]
17:09:24 [fielding]
this is assuming that the user has consented to personalization for *this* site.
17:09:24 [schunter]
ack np
17:09:48 [kulick]
nick: i would have concern with trying to id software in the signal
17:10:06 [kulick]
... this could go against decreasing fingerprint-ability
17:10:15 [kulick]
... i do understand why this is needed
17:10:16 [aleecia]
roy, i'm not sure that solves anything?
17:10:33 [Wileys]
17:10:35 [kulick]
... maybe add an additional char to represent default versus user setting
17:10:46 [Chris_IAB]
17:10:59 [schunter]
Nick: user preference vs default setting
17:11:05 [schunter]
ack ri
17:11:27 [Chris_IAB]
ndoty, I don't think we want to condone the default setting by incorporating it in the spec
17:11:31 [kulick]
rigo: user choice has 2 things
17:11:47 [npdoty]
s/i do understand why this is needed/i do understand the concern, why servers would want to distinguish software other than the user agent setting dnt:1/
17:11:54 [kulick]
... group agree defualt should be DNT unset
17:12:15 [kulick]
... user choice should be required for DNT:0
17:12:28 [npdoty]
Chris_IAB, I agree, it would be a non-compliant signal (that is, we would indicate in the spec that you can signal it but that it isn't compliant, the way we do with "!") right now
17:12:34 [kulick]
... getting to DNT:1 should be symmetric with getting to DNT:0
17:12:36 [aleecia]
17:13:20 [Zakim]
17:13:21 [Chris_IAB]
npdoty, why would we build a "non-compliant signal" into our spec? Our goal is compliance with the spec, not giving those who want a different flavor of DNT an easy way out of their non-compliance
17:13:34 [Chris_IAB]
npdoty, that would be a slippery slope
17:13:39 [kulick]
schunter: issue that other tools can "spray" DNT settings
17:13:40 [npdoty]
Chris_IAB, a rare instance of your vehemently agreeing with jmayer!
17:13:56 [kulick]
... shane's concern "how do i get reliable channel?
17:14:00 [kulick]
... "
17:14:08 [aleecia]
17:14:11 [npdoty]
Chris_IAB, some in industry have asked for ways to signal non-compliance, even though we would need to be explicit that defining the signal does not make it a compliant response
17:14:12 [kulick]
shane: yes, that is my concern
17:14:32 [Zakim]
17:14:52 [Wileys]
The goal is to force transparency of who is setting the DNT signal
17:14:54 [schunter]
17:14:56 [kulick]
schunter: want to be able disctiguish who set signal
17:14:56 [aleecia]
isn't that what dnt:1 is? :-)
17:15:10 [Wileys]
If we don't have that, I don't believe DNT will be implemented by industry
17:15:19 [Chris_IAB]
npdoty, how about simply adding an identifier that "we are not compliant with the spec"? Seems a bit silly to me, but it would be better than parsing out fine delineations
17:15:20 [npdoty]
17:15:23 [schunter]
17:15:25 [fielding]
I am not seeing the point here -- so invalid sender is going to signal they are invalid -- it will be identified by product charateristics (if ever)
17:15:28 [schunter]
ack ale
17:15:29 [kulick]
... back to queue
17:15:43 [kulick]
aleecia: matthais raise a point i want to re-visit
17:15:47 [fielding]
s/so invalid/no invalid/
17:16:22 [npdoty]
fielding, yes, I have some doubts about how practically helpful it would be
17:16:42 [kulick]
... anti-virus sftware that was setting DNT for users and did in registry and therefore rending UA unable to distinguish how it was set
17:17:00 [kulick]
... we dont have solutions how to handle conflicts
17:17:01 [Wileys]
I believe a signal stating "I'm a valid DNT signal" is a waste of time. Just tell who you are and I'll determine if you've sent a valid DNT signal or not.
17:17:12 [kulick]
... furthermore, how to even know if conflicts occured
17:17:21 [schunter]
17:17:23 [kulick]
... shane, technically how would this happen?
17:17:23 [Chris_IAB]
would someone setting the signal actually want to identify that they are non-compliant?
17:17:26 [schunter]
ack Wil
17:17:32 [kulick]
shane: multiple options
17:17:48 [kulick]
... some change in-flight and some at registry level
17:17:59 [kulick]
... in either case,
17:18:22 [kulick]
... in registry, if DNT is set other than by user, they would need to convey in registry as well.
17:18:30 [aleecia]
("via the UA UI" is one of the best phrases I've heard spoken this week)
17:18:30 [fielding]
Wileys, self-identification won't work either -- they'll just lie
17:18:36 [kulick]
... for in-flight, they would add their id at the same time
17:18:43 [rigo]
q+ to suggest that if it can't do exceptions, ignore it
17:18:45 [schunter]
17:18:46 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
17:18:47 [Wileys]
Roy, but I can go after liars legally :-)
17:18:48 [schunter]
ack Chris
17:19:04 [kulick]
chris: <breakin up>
17:19:08 [aleecia]
Rigo, how many times do we need to go 'round on that point? Argh.
17:19:23 [npdoty]
Wileys, aren't there already legal implications to non-compliance with the spec when claiming compliance?
17:19:35 [rigo]
aleecia, isn't this one option?
17:19:45 [kulick]
... if they are motiviated to lie, maybe we have a signal to say i am non-compliant
17:19:46 [aleecia]
it's one we've said no to so very very many times
17:19:58 [kulick]
chris, are you in a cave?
17:19:59 [aleecia]
like a zombie, it keeps lumbering out of the grave
17:20:01 [rigo]
17:20:05 [schunter]
17:20:21 [aleecia]
17:20:23 [Chris_IAB]
bad phone connection-- sorry, did you catch me?
17:20:23 [aleecia]
are you on mute?
17:20:24 [kulick]
schunter, on mute?
17:20:32 [Zakim]
17:20:35 [Wileys]
Nick, I don't believe so if they are stating something different on their side. If the standard requires the party setting the DNT signal name themselves and they don't, I now have grounds for a deceptive claim.
17:20:47 [kulick]
schunter: concern, no viable tech solution that is robust enough
17:21:00 [kulick]
... would like to have a bunch of tech proposals
17:21:01 [Chris_IAB]
kulick, to clarify for the record, it would be "if they are motivated NOT to lie"
17:21:17 [kulick]
chirs, sorry
17:21:19 [fielding]
Remember, the cost of sending additional data on every request MUST be justified on Internet-scale terms
17:21:31 [Wileys]
DNT:<value>, <user agent string of setter>
17:21:47 [kulick]
... send proposals to the mailing list and get responses
17:21:52 [aleecia]
given a choice between user agent and "I comply," I'd go with "I comply" to avoid the issues Nick raised
17:21:55 [kulick]
... need options to compare
17:21:58 [npdoty]
Wileys, if a party indicates a user agent string that you find deceptive but they're clear about it on their site, do you have more of a deception claim than if they sent dnt:1 and are non-compliant but claim compliance?
17:22:05 [Wileys]
Roy, agreed - so how do we make is "smaller" and still meet the need.
17:22:12 [aleecia]
and it does create an additional hook for enforcement
17:22:18 [aleecia]
but, I don't see how we get there -
17:22:31 [aleecia]
if one UA isn't compliant but three others are, which one do we send?
17:22:43 [schunter]
17:22:44 [kulick]
... make sense?
17:22:49 [rigo]
17:22:49 [aleecia]
we'd need an array
17:22:55 [npdoty]
17:22:56 [aleecia]
of all the UAs
17:22:59 [schunter]
ack ri
17:23:03 [hwest_]
hwest_ has joined #dnt
17:23:06 [aleecia]
but some are in flight and some are not...
17:23:12 [aleecia]
17:23:12 [kulick]
rigo: concerned that we make untestable reqirements
17:23:13 [Chris_IAB]
maybe... if the option is "this is my signal that I am non-compliant with the spec"
17:23:49 [schunter]
17:23:49 [kulick]
... servers cannot see into a user's computer... we are in untest territory
17:24:00 [Wileys]
Rigo, if we don't have this, then DNT will likely not be adopted
17:24:02 [aleecia]
"I'm non-compliant" is parallel to "I see your signal but don't do DNT." These are both ok with me. I just don't see how we *do* the UA side in a reasonable way.
17:24:13 [kulick]
schunter: how would you solve the problem
17:24:25 [kulick]
... some product sprays DNT:1
17:24:27 [aleecia]
(Ok = I can live with, not that I like. But, details)
17:24:50 [Chris_IAB]
rigo, what do you mean by "untested signals"?
17:24:59 [fielding]
Wileys, I don't think it can work -- what we would need is discovery within the user agent itself (like testing to see if javascript is enabled) but that still wouldn't work for user-installed proxies. Ultimately, this issue needs to be solved by social action, not technology.
17:25:03 [kulick]
rigo: it is difficult situation, but sending untestable signals <wont buy anything>
17:25:27 [kulick]
... there is no clear tradeoff
17:25:36 [Chris_IAB]
fielding and Wileys, I think I agree with fielding on this
17:25:37 [kulick]
... haveing untestable signal does buy anything
17:25:55 [aleecia]
17:25:55 [npdoty]
+1 to fielding (I was just giving possible alternative suggestions)
17:25:55 [kulick]
... have to solve by clear reqs and rules in compliance
17:26:00 [Zakim]
17:26:09 [Wileys]
Roy, if we can't find a solution, I believe DNT is DOA
17:26:09 [Chris_IAB]
rigo, not just social, but also potential regulatory (ie FTC encorcement?)
17:26:17 [kulick]
schunter: legacy prob also
17:26:20 [Zakim]
17:26:23 [rigo]
maybe, yes, unfair competition
17:26:32 [rigo]
-> to Chris_IAB
17:26:38 [Chris_IAB]
if DNT is sent and it is non-compliant, that's probably a deceptive behavior
17:27:10 [kulick]
... we should look at some and see if they provide partial solutions... important that we respect the concern and try to solve
17:27:16 [schunter]
17:27:19 [schunter]
ack np
17:27:23 [kulick]
... we might fail...
17:27:35 [kulick]
nick: procedural question
17:27:44 [kulick]
... 143 was closed based upon 194
17:27:46 [fielding]
If the working group does not pressure Microsoft to change its bad behavior, then I agree that DNT is well past dead. There is no point in continuing if folks on the side of "good" are not willing to police their own bad actors.
17:27:49 [Wileys]
Without a solution here, we have no balance within DNT. We're forcing high levels of transparency on the Server side (URI resources, TSAs, etc.) and almost none on the UA side.
17:28:04 [kulick]
... we could re-open but just for signially as it is broad
17:28:20 [kulick]
schunter: i will make sure there is an open issue
17:28:25 [kulick]
... for this
17:28:47 [aleecia]
Shane, you get that I'm saying "how do we do this, I don't see how" and not "we shouldn't do this," right? So far your proposal doesn't work yet.
17:28:51 [Wileys]
17:28:58 [kulick]
schunter: you okay with approach mentioned?
17:29:01 [Wileys]
Matthias - yes
17:29:02 [rigo]
it is is ISSUE-194 that superseded ISSUE-143
17:29:05 [schunter]
17:29:08 [kulick]
yes on IRC
17:29:16 [Zakim]
17:29:17 [kulick]
shane: yes
17:29:29 [kulick]
schunter: good use of last 2o mins, nice work
17:29:30 [npdoty]
reminder: register for the f2f if you expect to attend
17:29:43 [kulick]
schunter: we will do whiteboard on this at f2f
17:29:44 [Zakim]
17:29:46 [Zakim]
17:29:57 [kulick]
... may 1 for next meeting... bye
17:29:57 [Zakim]
17:29:59 [Zakim]
17:30:00 [Zakim]
17:30:01 [Zakim]
17:30:01 [Zakim]
17:30:02 [rigo]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
17:30:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate rigo
17:30:02 [Zakim]
17:30:02 [Zakim]
17:30:03 [Zakim]
17:30:03 [Zakim]
17:30:05 [fielding]
forgot to ask about Acks
17:30:06 [Zakim]
17:30:08 [Zakim]
17:30:16 [npdoty]
Zakim, list attendees
17:30:16 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been kulick, schunter, +1.609.258.aaaa, eberkower, npdoty, +1.202.347.aabb, Fielding, rvaneijk, Aleecia, +1.202.326.aacc, WaltM_Comcast,
17:30:19 [Zakim]
... prestia, paulohm, hwest, +1.916.641.aadd, hefferjr, RichardWeaver, sidstamm, Joanne, Rigo, [Microsoft], WileyS, Peder_Magee, David_MacMillan, Chris_IAB, JeffWilson,
17:30:19 [Zakim]
... Dan_Auerbach, +1.781.482.aaee, samsilberman, Jonathan_Mayer, [FTC], Chapell, Brooks, BerinSzoka, moneill2
17:30:24 [npdoty]
rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:30:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate npdoty
17:30:37 [Zakim]
17:34:10 [Zakim]
17:34:16 [Zakim]
17:34:17 [Zakim]
17:34:18 [Zakim]
17:34:19 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:34:19 [Zakim]
Attendees were kulick, schunter, +1.609.258.aaaa, eberkower, npdoty, +1.202.347.aabb, Fielding, rvaneijk, Aleecia, +1.202.326.aacc, WaltM_Comcast, prestia, paulohm, hwest,
17:34:19 [Zakim]
... +1.916.641.aadd, hefferjr, RichardWeaver, sidstamm, Joanne, Rigo, [Microsoft], WileyS, Peder_Magee, David_MacMillan, Chris_IAB, JeffWilson, Dan_Auerbach, +1.781.482.aaee,
17:34:19 [Zakim]
... samsilberman, Jonathan_Mayer, [FTC], Chapell, Brooks, BerinSzoka, moneill2
19:25:08 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
20:08:26 [rigo]
rigo has left #dnt
20:21:53 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt