15:42:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:42:17 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/07/03-dnt-irc
15:42:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:42:19 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dnt
15:42:21 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
15:42:22 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:42:22 <trackbot> Date: 03 July 2013
15:42:22 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:42:27 <npdoty> Zakim, this will be 87225
15:42:27 <Zakim> ok, npdoty; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 18 minutes
15:42:39 <npdoty> chair: peterswire
15:50:01 <efelten> efelten has joined #dnt
15:51:30 <peterswire> peterswire has joined #dnt
15:53:06 <rvaneijk> rvaneijk has joined #dnt
15:53:07 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:53:12 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
15:53:16 <Zakim> + +49.172.147.aaaa
15:55:24 <jackhobaugh> jackhobaugh has joined #dnt
15:55:30 <WaltMichel> WaltMichel has joined #DNT
15:56:11 <Zakim> + +31.65.141.aabb
15:56:12 <Zakim> +npdoty
15:56:16 <Zakim> + +1.215.480.aacc
15:56:18 <rvaneijk> Zakim, aabb is me
15:56:18 <Zakim> +rvaneijk; got it
15:56:27 <Zakim> + +1.202.347.aadd
15:56:45 <WaltMichel> 215 is WaltMichel
15:56:45 <eberkower> eberkower has joined #dnt
15:56:51 <npdoty> Zakim, aacc is WaltMichel
15:56:51 <Zakim> +WaltMichel; got it
15:56:56 <jackhobaugh> Zakim, aadd is jackhobaugh
15:56:56 <Zakim> + +1.202.262.aaee
15:56:56 <Zakim> +jackhobaugh; got it
15:57:25 <PaulGlist> PaulGlist has joined #dnt
15:57:25 <tlr> zakim, call thomas-781
15:57:26 <Zakim> ok, tlr; the call is being made
15:57:26 <Zakim> +Thomas
15:57:36 <Zakim> +Wendy
15:57:44 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #dnt
15:57:59 <tlr> zakim, I am thomas
15:57:59 <Zakim> ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
15:58:05 <tlr> zakim, mute me
15:58:05 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
15:58:09 <tlr> zakim, mute dsinger
15:58:09 <Zakim> sorry, tlr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to dsinger
15:58:11 <jchester2> jchester2 has joined #dnt
15:58:15 <Zakim> - +49.172.147.aaaa
15:58:19 <Ari> Ari has joined #dnt
15:58:25 <Zakim> + +972.8.979.aaff
15:58:38 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
15:58:39 <Zakim> +jchester2
15:58:41 <jchester2> zakim, mute me
15:58:41 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
15:58:43 <Zakim> + +1.609.258.aagg
15:58:43 <Zakim> + +1.202.478.aahh
15:58:45 <BillScannell> BillScannell has joined #dnt
15:58:46 <npdoty> Zakim, aaff is omertene
15:58:46 <Zakim> + +49.172.147.aaii
15:58:46 <Zakim> +omertene; got it
15:58:50 <efelten> Zakim, aagg is me
15:58:51 <Zakim> +efelten; got it
15:58:51 <Zakim> +dwainberg
15:58:53 <Zakim> - +1.202.478.aahh
15:58:54 <Zakim> + +1.646.654.aajj
15:58:57 <npdoty> Zakim, aaee is PaulGlist
15:58:57 <rachel_n_thomas> rachel_n_thomas has joined #dnt
15:58:57 <Zakim> +PaulGlist; got it
15:59:00 <eberkower> Zakim, aajj is eberkower
15:59:00 <Zakim> +eberkower; got it
15:59:26 <Zakim> + +1.323.253.aakk
15:59:38 <schunter> zakim, aaii is schunter
15:59:38 <Zakim> +schunter; got it
15:59:46 <Zakim> + +1.813.732.aall
15:59:49 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:59:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see rvaneijk, npdoty, WaltMichel, jackhobaugh, PaulGlist, Thomas (muted), Wendy, omertene, jchester2 (muted), efelten, schunter, dwainberg, eberkower,
15:59:52 <Zakim> ... +1.323.253.aakk, +1.813.732.aall
16:00:02 <Zakim> + +1.202.257.aamm
16:00:06 <Zakim> + +1.202.478.aann
16:00:06 <mecallahan> mecallahan has joined #DNT
16:00:21 <rachel_n_thomas> zakim, aann is rachel_n_thomas
16:00:21 <Zakim> +rachel_n_thomas; got it
16:00:25 <Zakim> + +1.202.697.aaoo
16:00:35 <Yianni> Yianni has joined #DNT
16:00:47 <Zakim> +Aleecia
16:00:59 <Zakim> + +1.303.746.aapp
16:01:01 <moneill2> moneill2 has joined #dnt
16:01:03 <ninjamarnau> ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
16:01:04 <Zakim> + +1.202.587.aaqq
16:01:12 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:01:13 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
16:01:14 <npdoty> Zakim, aapp is paulohm
16:01:14 <Zakim> +paulohm; got it
16:01:26 <Zakim> +[Apple]
16:01:29 <Zakim> + +1.301.365.aarr
16:01:33 <dsinger> zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:01:33 <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
16:01:35 <Zakim> +BerinSzoka
16:01:43 <Zakim> + +44.186.558.aass
16:01:45 <npdoty> Zakim, aarr is Yianni
16:01:45 <Zakim> +Yianni; got it
16:01:47 <moneill2> zakim, [IPCaller] is me
16:01:47 <Zakim> sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named '[IPCaller]'
16:01:49 <sidstamm> sidstamm has joined #dnt
16:01:50 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
16:01:55 <Zakim> +Keith_Scarborough
16:01:59 <sidstamm> Zakim, Mozilla has sidstamm
16:02:00 <Zakim> +sidstamm; got it
16:02:06 <justin> justin has joined #dnt
16:02:08 <Zakim> +Brooks
16:02:10 <amyc> amyc has joined #dnt
16:02:12 <Zakim> -schunter
16:02:15 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see rvaneijk, npdoty, WaltMichel, jackhobaugh, PaulGlist, Thomas (muted), Wendy, omertene, jchester2 (muted), efelten, dwainberg, eberkower, +1.323.253.aakk,
16:02:18 <Zakim> ... +1.813.732.aall, +1.202.257.aamm, rachel_n_thomas, +1.202.697.aaoo, Aleecia, paulohm, +1.202.587.aaqq, [Microsoft], [Apple], Yianni, BerinSzoka, +44.186.558.aass, [Mozilla],
16:02:18 <Zakim> ... Keith_Scarborough, Brooks
16:02:18 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:02:18 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:02:21 <Zakim> + +1.202.603.aatt
16:02:23 <Zakim> - +44.186.558.aass
16:02:29 <Zakim> + +1.646.278.aauu
16:02:37 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
16:02:40 <adrianba> zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
16:02:40 <mecallahan> zakim aamm is mecallahan
16:02:41 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
16:02:43 <Zakim> +adrianba; got it
16:02:44 <Marc_> Marc_ has joined #dnt
16:02:49 <Zakim> +[CDT]
16:02:52 <Yianni> zakim, aaqq is Yianni
16:02:52 <Zakim> +Yianni; got it
16:02:55 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:02:55 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:03:03 <Chapell> Chapell has joined #DNT
16:03:03 <Richard_comScore> Richard_comScore has joined #dnt
16:03:04 <Zakim> +Rigo
16:03:04 <npdoty> Zakim, aaoo is Peter_4As
16:03:05 <Zakim> +Peter_4As; got it
16:03:10 <rigo> zakim, mute me
16:03:11 <Zakim> + +49.431.98.aavv
16:03:11 <Zakim> Rigo should now be muted
16:03:11 <Zakim> + +44.186.558.aaww
16:03:13 <justin> zakim, aamm is mecallahan
16:03:13 <Zakim> +mecallahan; got it
16:03:15 <Zakim> +schunter
16:03:16 <adrianba> zakim, mute me
16:03:16 <Zakim> adrianba should now be muted
16:03:18 <moneill2> zakim. [IPCaller] is me
16:03:23 <Keith> Keith has joined #dnt
16:03:24 <justin> scribenick: justin
16:03:27 <tlr> zakim, aavv is probably ninja
16:03:27 <Zakim> +ninja?; got it
16:03:29 <Zakim> + +1.571.213.aaxx
16:03:30 <jmayer> jmayer has joined #dnt
16:03:34 <Zakim> +RichardWeaver
16:03:35 <ninjamarnau> zakim, aavv is ninjamarnau
16:03:36 <Zakim> sorry, ninjamarnau, I do not recognize a party named 'aavv'
16:03:41 <moneill2> zakim, [IPCaller] is me
16:03:41 <Zakim> sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named '[IPCaller]'
16:03:42 <tlr> zakim, ninja is really ninjamarnau
16:03:42 <Zakim> +ninjamarnau; got it
16:03:43 <rigo> zakim, aavv is Ninja
16:03:43 <Zakim> sorry, rigo, I do not recognize a party named 'aavv'
16:04:00 <wseltzer> zakim, aatt is probably Suzanne
16:04:00 <Zakim> +Suzanne?; got it
16:04:02 <Zakim> -Peter_4As
16:04:04 <Zakim> +johnsimpson
16:04:21 <Zakim> + +1.650.365.aayy
16:04:33 <justin> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see rvaneijk, npdoty, WaltMichel, jackhobaugh, PaulGlist, Thomas (muted), Wendy, omertene, jchester2 (muted), efelten, dwainberg, eberkower, +1.323.253.aakk,
16:04:36 <Zakim> ... +1.813.732.aall, mecallahan, rachel_n_thomas, Aleecia, paulohm, Yianni.a, [Microsoft], [Apple], Yianni, BerinSzoka, [Mozilla], Keith_Scarborough, Brooks, Suzanne?,
16:04:36 <Zakim> ... +1.646.278.aauu, adrianba (muted), [CDT], Rigo (muted), +44.186.558.aaww, ninjamarnau, schunter, +1.571.213.aaxx, RichardWeaver, johnsimpson, +1.650.365.aayy
16:04:36 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:04:36 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:04:40 <Zakim> +Chris_Pedigo
16:04:44 <JC> JC has joined #DNT
16:04:45 <Chapell> zakim aauu is chapell
16:04:51 <David_MacMillan> David_MacMillan has joined #dnt
16:04:52 <npdoty> Zakim, aauu is Chapell
16:04:55 <Zakim> +Chapell; got it
16:04:59 <justin> peterswire: How the call will go --- lots of people have vacay
16:05:00 <Yianni> Yianni has joined #DNT
16:05:17 <justin> ... This call will help identify and talk through issues, but opportunity to revisit on next call.
16:05:23 <Zakim> +Peter_4As
16:05:23 <ChrisPedigoOPA> ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:05:26 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Mayer
16:05:28 <justin> ... Two key deadlines in my emails this week.
16:05:38 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
16:05:38 <jmayer> +q
16:05:40 <justin> ... Noon next Tuesday: perfecting amendments to DAA approach.
16:05:56 <Zakim> + +1.202.787.aazz
16:05:59 <Zakim> +Peder_Magee
16:05:59 <moneill2> zakim, aaww is me
16:05:59 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
16:06:19 <dsinger> I am getting a sense of whiplash.  Are we working off the old compliance document, the June draft, or the DAA?  Does the DAA even have a redline, let alone reasons for change, offered?
16:06:27 <pm2023263538> pm2023263538 has joined #dnt
16:06:31 <jchester2> Say this again.  When is the deadline for comments to the DAA draft.  Are you saying one week only, to review everything and resubmit?
16:06:33 <npdoty> Zakim, aazz is BillScannell
16:06:33 <Zakim> +BillScannell; got it
16:06:41 <justin> ... A week from Friday, [interference] is deadline for opinions on which should be base text: June draft or DAA?
16:06:49 <aleecia> aleecia has joined #dnt
16:06:49 <justin> ... Likely a chair's opinion on that by end of July.
16:06:54 <jchester2> +q
16:06:54 <Zakim> + +49.211.600.4.bbaa
16:06:54 <aleecia> q+
16:07:02 <jmayer> I would like to ask a clarifying question about procedure, please.
16:07:15 <justin> ... Today's call --- let the DAA present their package.
16:07:21 <TS> TS has joined #dnt
16:07:23 <dsinger> I don't want the DAA to talk about it, I want them to write it down
16:07:40 <justin> ... DAA sees all these amendments as linked together, so they should be considered together.
16:07:51 <tlr> zakim, bbaa is probably TS
16:07:51 <Zakim> +TS?; got it
16:07:54 <jchester2> I agree with David.  We need to discuss this now, Peter.  You are rushing througn a process here.
16:07:59 <efelten> I would like the DAA to explain the rationale for their de-identification approach, in writing, as a start.
16:08:01 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:08:13 <justin> ... Want input from rvaneijk and [someone else] on unique identifiers, de-ID, Yianni's language on branded first party in third-party context.
16:08:13 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Yianni (42%)
16:08:34 <justin> q?
16:08:36 <npdoty> Zakim, Yianni has peterswire
16:08:36 <Zakim> +peterswire; got it
16:08:40 <justin> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:08:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see rvaneijk, npdoty, WaltMichel, jackhobaugh, PaulGlist, Thomas (muted), Wendy, omertene, jchester2 (muted), efelten, dwainberg, eberkower, +1.323.253.aakk,
16:08:44 <Zakim> ... +1.813.732.aall, mecallahan, rachel_n_thomas, Aleecia, paulohm, Yianni.a, [Microsoft], [Apple], Yianni, BerinSzoka, [Mozilla], Keith_Scarborough, Brooks, Suzanne?, Chapell,
16:08:44 <Zakim> ... adrianba (muted), [CDT], Rigo (muted), moneill2, ninjamarnau, schunter, +1.571.213.aaxx, RichardWeaver, johnsimpson, +1.650.365.aayy, Chris_Pedigo, Peter_4As, Jonathan_Mayer,
16:08:44 <Zakim> ... [Microsoft.a], BillScannell, Peder_Magee, TS?
16:08:45 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:08:45 <Zakim> Yianni has peterswire
16:08:48 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:08:53 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise
16:08:53 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is making noise', npdoty
16:08:54 <jchester2> Can someone tell Peter there are people on the que.
16:08:54 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:09:04 <justin> zaneis: I'm happy to walk through industry proposal.
16:09:05 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.571.213.aaxx (9%), Yianni (97%)
16:09:21 <justin> peterswire: maybe skip de-id as that's been discussed before.
16:09:22 <jmayer> Peter, when is the appropriate time to clarify the procedure you just walked us through?
16:09:27 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:09:35 <efelten> We have not discussed the DAA's de-id proposal before.
16:09:39 <Zakim> -Jonathan_Mayer
16:09:53 <johnsimpson> q?
16:09:54 <peterswire> i expect to return to procedure before the end of the call
16:09:58 <jchester2> I hope that the FTC and the EU are noting the lack of good process here, esp for the NGOs.
16:10:01 <fpf> fpf has joined #dnt
16:10:03 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:10:05 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Mayer
16:10:11 <efelten> Who participated in writing this draft?
16:10:14 <kj> kj has joined #dnt
16:10:16 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (31%)
16:10:18 <justin> zaneis: We only had a week to pull this together.
16:10:21 <jmayer> Thanks, Peter.
16:10:24 <Zakim> +Craig_Spiezle
16:10:35 <johnsimpson> who participated in writing the draft, please?
16:10:38 <justin> ... Take a look at what W3C is trying to achieve --- reach consensus on implementable standard.
16:10:45 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:10:53 <justin> ... Keys are "consensus" and "implementable"
16:10:54 <dsinger> do we have (a) a redline or (b) explanation of what was changed, the degree (major, minor, editorial) and the rationale?
16:11:00 <aleecia> For the record, I object to the following three things: (1) our starting points are either what the co-chair wrote, or what DAA has in mind, rather than our group consensus starting point. (2) We have no text from DAA; slides are not a substitute. (3) We are not even allowed to discuss these issues.
16:11:13 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:11:24 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (9%), Yianni.a (4%)
16:11:33 <peterswire> A copy of the DAA proposal with changes highlighted is here:
16:11:33 <peterswire> 	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/att-0466/NAI-DAA-DMA_June_26_draft_compared_to_June_22_Tracking_Compliance_and_Scope_copy.pdf
16:11:36 <justin> zaneis: trying to figure out what we can get 100s of companies to agree to.
16:11:39 <tlr> redline: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/att-0466/NAI-DAA-DMA_June_26_draft_compared_to_June_22_Tracking_Compliance_and_Scope_copy.pdf
16:11:49 <cOlsen> cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:11:54 <schunter> zakim, mute me
16:11:54 <Zakim> schunter should now be muted
16:11:58 <justin> ... Sorry that we didn't follow exact protocol --- want to explain why we did what we did with more specificity.
16:12:01 <aleecia> This is disrespectful to the group and to our time.
16:12:07 <johnsimpson> Who is "We"?
16:12:08 <jchester2> I concurr with Aleecia.
16:12:11 <CraigSpiezle-OTA> CraigSpiezle-OTA has joined #dnt
16:12:22 <Zakim> +[FTC]
16:12:24 <jchester2> I concurr with Aleecia.
16:12:33 <justin> ... Wanted it to be simple. And wanted to show how this effort would intersect with broader industry self-reg.
16:12:36 <aleecia> I am shocked that W3C is allowing this to happen without objection, when it violates every process we have had in place.
16:13:00 <efelten> I'll say it again: no justification has been offered for the DAA's de-identification *language*.
16:13:07 <justin> ... Shane had done a lot of technical work on how deidentification might work in this space.
16:13:14 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:13:16 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
16:13:18 <dsinger> I feel I have spent the last two weeks working down one road, and now we're on a different one.  How much are we supposed to tolerate this?\
16:13:19 <justin> ... [interference]
16:13:25 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.571.213.aaxx (68%), Yianni (33%)
16:13:29 <johnsimpson> It is not at all clear to me how Shane's slides relate the DAA document.
16:13:30 <aleecia> I have no faith that time I put into working on DNT is anything but a waste
16:13:42 <npdoty> Zakim, aaxx may be mike_zaneis
16:13:43 <Zakim> +mike_zaneis?; got it
16:13:54 <johnsimpson> I agree with David Singer
16:13:56 <justin> ... When we say down to draft, we know there had been two approaches: (1) focusing on the DNT signal, and the user interface, what is appropriate response, etc.
16:14:12 <justin> ... reality is that environment has changed since this group was created.
16:14:23 <aleecia> I have no faith that members of the TPWG are actually participating in this process. Rather, it appears to be a set of back-room discussions then brought forward for the fiction that the group is involved.
16:14:39 <justin> ... We had thought this was all about DNT signals being sent by *browsers* --- now marketplace has progressed, we're seeing up to 20% of DNT flags for all internet users.
16:15:04 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:15:16 <aleecia> While I am entirely frustrated with meta conversations about process, let me document: this is not a process that leads to consensus decisions from members of the group.
16:15:26 <justin> ... My members seeing 20-25% of user base sending flag. Early on, our position had been: perhaps the W3C could standardize the DNT signal, and we would treat that as an industry opt-out.
16:15:32 <justin> ... That is no longer tenable.
16:15:44 <justin> ... We expect DNT:1 signals to approach 50% in short-term.
16:15:47 <johnsimpson> you have 25 percent DNT flags because people do not want to be tracked.
16:15:49 <Zakim> + +33.6.50.34.bbbb
16:16:01 <justin> ... No longer want to try to distinguish between what DNT:1 signals are legitimate and which are not.
16:16:04 <jmayer> I also agree with David. We worked *very* hard to quickly compile issue-by-issue proposals and rationales, as the chairs requested. The stakeholders who declined to follow that constructive and substantive process are being rewarded with extra time and focus.
16:16:06 <vincent> zakim, bbbb is me
16:16:06 <Zakim> +vincent; got it
16:16:32 <justin> ... Now, within industry, we've decided to take a different approach, and focus on deidentification.  Hope that could be a way to make consensus.
16:17:09 <justin> ... Yes, we had fought tooth and nail on the default and UI issue, and we're now willing to take those off the table in the name of progress.  Now the question is what level of deidentification is appropriate and implementable.  We want to have that discussion.
16:17:34 <ninjamarnau> I don't see a reason to see a reason than other change proposal to june draft. Broken down issue by issue with justification and discussion. I am completely opposed to use the DAA proposal as a basis to find consensus.
16:17:49 <justin> ... The industry approach trying to get a meaningful DNT standard. And then the DAA would pick up the W3C standard and require its members to publicly assert compliance thereto.
16:17:56 <justin> ... BBB would then enforce against our member companies.
16:17:58 <Zakim> + +1.202.587.bbcc
16:18:14 <aleecia> This not only does harm to the idea we might reach a group decision on Do Not Track, for the first time I seriously question the legitimacy of W3C as an organization to perform multi-stakeholder work.
16:18:23 <justin> ... We thought that only by putting all that stuff together, that was the only want to present this to the group.
16:18:27 <johnsimpson> Who is "we" the Mike keeps referring to. Who drafted the DAA document??????????
16:18:42 <justin> ... And that could lead to implementation in the ecosystem and enforceability.
16:18:46 <efelten> Can we please talk about the content of the proposal?
16:19:07 <johnsimpson> This is a filibuster.
16:19:10 <peterswire> yes
16:19:26 <justin> ... Would like to see this group work on permitted uses, to limit the permitted uses in the DAA code.  Like market research --- we're willing to try to adopt that language and be informed by that,
16:19:30 <justin> s/,/.
16:19:32 <Zakim> -Suzanne?
16:19:34 <jchester2> The Better Business Bureau is a member of the DAA--not really an effective body on privacy: http://www.bbb.org/us/interest-based-advertising/
16:19:55 <justin> zaneis: This is not a Grand Bargain. This is a way to get consensus [?]
16:20:25 <justin> ... We've gotten criticism that this doesn't advance privacy. We disagree --- the enhancements to de-ID, etc. are a way to get real progress for consumers.
16:20:41 <justin> peterswire: Let's skip to clarifying question. Thanks for background.
16:20:43 <aleecia> These all sound like lovely goals for DAA to work on internally, and I support those goals. But this is not a W3C DNT spec.
16:21:01 <justin> s/question/questions
16:21:03 <npdoty> I thought the DAA proposal still kept the same UA requirements, on when to send the flag at all
16:21:07 <justin> peterswire: Who is the "we" here?
16:21:39 <justin> zaneis: It's a broad industry submission. Specifically, presented by DAA,IAB, NAI, DMA, and the DAA trade associations representign the whole supply change: ad nets, publishers, agencies, &c.
16:21:41 <aleecia> I think I missed which TPWG members were involved.
16:21:49 <aleecia> Seeing as that's the group we're in.
16:21:51 <jmayer> I'd also like to get back to substance. Perhaps we could start with the questions that Thomas so helpfully compiled? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0005.html
16:21:52 <justin> ... They all support this in principle.
16:21:56 <johnsimpson> Can we please have specific names?
16:22:00 <justin> ... Comcast, Yahoo! and a few others put their names to it.
16:22:06 <tlr> ack thomas
16:22:09 <johnsimpson> Are any of them members of the working group?
16:22:12 <rvaneijk> q+
16:22:15 <aleecia> Were there ANY other TPWG members involved?
16:22:25 <jmayer> -q
16:22:30 <justin> peterswire: Let's get back to normative text --- thomas could you help us with the questions you put out to the list?
16:22:30 <Zakim> -moneill2
16:22:31 <efelten> Mike identified DAA, DMA, IAB, Yahoo, and Comcast as supporters of the proposal.
16:22:47 <aleecia> But not a single person.
16:22:54 <efelten> Also NAI.
16:22:56 <aleecia> I have no idea if Yahoo means Shane, or not
16:22:59 <aleecia> &c
16:23:01 <justin> thomas: I heard you speak about the broad consistuency --- you mentioned DAA, IAB, and DMA?
16:23:04 <aleecia> q-
16:23:12 <Jules_Polonetsky> Jules_Polonetsky has joined #DNT
16:23:14 <justin> zaneis: Yes, certainly them and others, along with some companies.
16:23:29 <justin> thomas: Can the companies say that for the record?
16:23:47 <johnsimpson> We need the companies?
16:23:49 <Jules_Polonetsky> zakim 202/587 is Jules Polonetsky
16:23:56 <justin> thomas: I sent a set of questions on July 1 that did not draw an answer. Here are the questions, the first from efelten:
16:24:15 <justin> thomas: What is the difference between deidentified and delinked, and where does delinked ever get used in the document?
16:24:17 <npdoty> Zakim, bbcc is Jules_Polonetsky
16:24:17 <Zakim> +Jules_Polonetsky; got it
16:24:30 <justin> zaneis: Shane has walked though a lot of these use cases, and last week on a group call.
16:24:55 <justin> ... One example is the Red/Yellow/Green proposal.  And I think there is flexibility here.
16:24:56 <efelten> Nobody has offered a justification for the proposed *language*.
16:24:56 <johnsimpson> Shane showed a bunch of slides.  There is no clear way that the slides relate to the prosed text.
16:25:00 <justin> ... [interference]
16:25:36 <tlr> zakim, mute me
16:25:36 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
16:25:41 <jchester2> -q
16:25:44 <justin> thomas: Agreed, there are a lot of names for all those states.  The real question is what in the proposal is different between de-id'd and delinked.
16:25:57 <johnsimpson> you document doesn't to that
16:26:21 <justin> zaneis: We presented a deidentification *principle* and then identified examples of what would work.  But meant to allow a fair amount of flexibility of how to get to that principle.
16:26:24 <jchester2> +q
16:26:43 <tlr> ack thomas
16:26:54 <justin> ... Think of the deidenification language as the normative, and think of Shane's examples as non-normative.
16:27:02 <justin> peterswire: Is delinked every used in the document?
16:27:18 <efelten> Shane's PowerPoint doesn't answer this question.
16:27:30 <Zakim> +MikeO
16:27:34 <justin> zaneis: There are different use cases.  I don't have Shane's PPT in front of me, and I'm not qualified to get into the operational issues.  Everyone's on vacay!
16:27:40 <johnsimpson> Not even clear what requires de-identified data..
16:27:46 <moneill2> zakim, mute me
16:27:46 <Zakim> sorry, moneill2, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:27:48 <jmayer> I'd like to understand the deidentification principle. We can get to the technical implementation after.
16:28:11 <npdoty> it's used "after there are no remaining permitted uses ... data must be de-identified and de-linked"
16:28:12 <moneill2> zakim, MikeO is me
16:28:12 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
16:28:16 <justin> thomas: I looked at this specific point --- I tried to find where delinked used.  In the permitted uses, you have delinked show up once.  Just on retention.  Seemed inconsistent with other parts of the doc.
16:28:23 <moneill2> zakim, mute me
16:28:23 <Zakim> moneill2 should now be muted
16:28:40 <justin> ... Two q's: (1) What is difference between two states, and (2) Where are de-ID and delinked used?
16:28:50 <justin> rachel_n_thomas: This is very clearly laid out in the document
16:29:11 <justin> ... This discussion is best had with the technical adops folks are available.
16:29:13 <rigo> q?
16:29:19 <efelten> If it's clear in the definition text, then somebody should be able explain it to us.
16:29:53 <justin> peterswire: More questions.  In the June draft, there was language that there should be no unique IDs is reasonably available [not to use?].
16:29:58 <justin> ... why not leave in spec?
16:30:41 <moneill2> basically DAA says "no"
16:30:49 <justin> zaneis: We don't know what's "reasonably available." Cookies have been the building block for a long time. We don't have a sense of what people want or mean, so we couldn't commit to a theoretical mechanism. We don't understand what's being asked of us.
16:31:02 <dsinger> can someone tell me what the legal threshold of 'reasonable' means?  Is this commercially reasonable efforts?  best efforts?
16:31:04 <jchester2> Privacy is what is being asked.
16:31:26 <justin> ... Rather than focus on certain technologies, we wanted to have a broad definition of tracking. Shouldn't matter if it's cookie based or statistical identification.
16:31:33 <moneill2> tracking is unique ids
16:31:56 <justin> peterswire: What about permissibility of retargeting?
16:32:16 <justin> ... Under the DAA code, is that allowed --- for site B to use behavior from site A?
16:32:20 <tlr> zakim, mute me
16:32:20 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
16:32:32 <Zakim> -Chapell
16:32:37 <justin> zaneis: Not comparing apples to apples.  Difference between DAA program and DNT with 50% opt out.
16:32:41 <Zakim> -Peter_4As
16:32:49 <Zakim> -moneill2
16:32:52 <justin> ... That retargeting practice is likely not allowed if DAA opt-out.
16:32:57 <Zakim> +moneill2
16:33:08 <justin> zaneis: Generally accepted but not a lot of case law.
16:33:34 <jmayer> On privacy-preserving technologies, researchers have offered to collaborate with DAA member companies for years. The companies have declined. Any lack of understanding is, at this stage, attributable to willful ignorance.
16:33:39 <justin> ... But without getting into specificity of Shane's proposal, some of that might be allowed if the data is really deidentified first.
16:33:40 <rigo> is it possible to single out without being associated to connected to a specific user, computer, device? Text is unclear to me. Text is unclear IMHO. See the letter of Dix who says "erase last segment of the IP address". IMHO non normative text should examplify what all this text means
16:33:48 <Zakim> +Chapell
16:33:57 <justin> ... More about a data hygiene practice.  DAA program though would still exist.
16:34:10 <justin> ... which would probably opt you out of retargeting.
16:34:11 <efelten> So the DAA text proposal would allow retargeting?
16:34:31 <moneill2> "safe" tracking
16:34:58 <Zakim> + +1.650.595.bbdd
16:34:59 <justin> peterswire: So the industry proposal seems more like a data hygiene proposal. So you'd turn on DNT:1 to opt for data hygiene, and then go to DAA to opt out of what you allow opt out of.
16:35:02 <justin> zaneis: That's right.
16:35:15 <JoAnn_Covington> JoAnn_Covington has joined #dnt
16:35:17 <npdoty> that's a useful clarification, as I hadn't understood from the normative language that re-targeting and other profiling was consistent with DNT: 1 in the proposal
16:35:39 <Chapell> tlr, i think i was dropped
16:35:43 <justin> rvaneijk: I tried to bring delinking into Shane's proposal, and to explain where we differ in our views.
16:35:48 <dsinger> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:35:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see rvaneijk, npdoty, WaltMichel, jackhobaugh, PaulGlist, Thomas (muted), Wendy, omertene, jchester2 (muted), efelten, dwainberg, eberkower, +1.323.253.aakk,
16:35:52 <Zakim> ... +1.813.732.aall, mecallahan, rachel_n_thomas, Aleecia, paulohm, Yianni.a, [Microsoft], [Apple], Yianni, BerinSzoka, [Mozilla], Keith_Scarborough, Brooks, adrianba (muted),
16:35:52 <Zakim> ... [CDT], Rigo (muted), ninjamarnau, schunter (muted), mike_zaneis?, RichardWeaver, johnsimpson, +1.650.365.aayy, Chris_Pedigo, [Microsoft.a], BillScannell, Peder_Magee, TS?,
16:35:52 <Zakim> ... Jonathan_Mayer, Craig_Spiezle, [FTC], vincent, Jules_Polonetsky, moneill2, Chapell, +1.650.595.bbdd
16:35:56 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:35:56 <Zakim> Yianni has peterswire
16:35:56 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:36:08 <justin> ... We need a good definition of deidentification --- trying to get to the gold standard: FTC's "do not collect" language!
16:36:40 <aleecia> The argument is that DNT will be too pervasive to be able to limit tracking, hence the move to "data hygiene." And maybe that's so. But that means we cannot get to consensus for Do Not Track. That would be extraordinarily unfortunate.
16:36:52 <johnsimpson> q?
16:36:53 <justin> ... I added a friendly correcting amendment that could get closer to that.  Deidentification shouldn't just be around third parties down the line like service providers.  This is my first proposal geraed at fixing def of de-id.
16:37:11 <justin> ... My other proposals have been to fix either the 3 state or 2 state approach. I am agnostic as to which of those we should use.
16:37:20 <justin> ... Article 29 is looking at this as well.
16:37:46 <justin> ... My proposal for 3 state: Red data is linkable. Yellow data can still be linkable, but let's not call it deidentified.
16:38:04 <justin> ... On the two state approach, there's a linkable stage and a deidentified stage.
16:38:31 <justin> ... In the deidentified stage, you have to make sure that the data can't be linked back.
16:38:50 <jchester2> -q
16:39:06 <justin> ... That's a short summary of the proposals I submitted: (1) fix def of deidentified.  Let's not call hashes deidentified.  The key needs to be the ability to link.
16:39:10 <Zakim> +??P88
16:39:18 <aleecia> Perhaps there is a need for a different WG on "data hygiene," with a different charter, and likely different group members. It would move faster and better.
16:39:21 <laurengelman> laurengelman has joined #dnt
16:39:37 <justin> peterswire: Making sure I understand.  Sounds like your neutral between 2 and 3 states.  Other is that hashing doesn't get you to delinking.
16:39:41 <laurengelman> yes!
16:39:42 <justin> rvaneijk: Right.
16:39:47 <tlr> zakim, ??P88 is probably lauren
16:39:47 <Zakim> +lauren?; got it
16:39:50 <laurengelman> ty
16:39:58 <npdoty> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Deidentification
16:40:02 <tlr> lauren, note you can do that yourself
16:40:29 <justin> Thomas_Schauf: Want to discuss about hashed identifiers can't be deidentified.  If tied just to cookie, it's not tied to a particular user.
16:40:31 <laurengelman> yes. was abt too.
16:41:08 <justin> ... I like Roy's language that you need "justified confidence" (I tried to make more legalistic) that it can't be tied to a data subject ...
16:41:13 <aleecia> q+
16:41:21 <moneill2> the cookie is stored in the user's device and can identify them.
16:41:29 <public> public has joined #dnt
16:41:46 <justin> ... without additional information without disproportionate time or effort.  You can't identify the natural person , though there would be some sort of remaining list of undoing de-ID (government request) ...
16:41:50 <rvaneijk> Thomas, sorry, but we are not doing legal things here, it is a technical approach for a technical standard...!!
16:41:55 <justin> ... but for tracking purposes, not tied to real person.
16:42:32 <justin> peterswire: To help us clarify, previously we had had langauge similar to FTC and from Dan Auerbach.
16:42:59 <Zakim> -paulohm
16:43:05 <justin> ... Do you see this proposal as similar to FTC/Dan, or could you clarify how it's different?
16:43:47 <npdoty> if the distinction is about connecting to a natural person, does that mean all existing uses of cookies that don't have real names attached are already "de-identified"?
16:44:09 <justin> Thomas_Schauf: I haven't looked at that recently, I was just working off of fielding's language.
16:44:30 <mecallahan> mecallahan now scribing
16:44:32 <justin> scribenick: mecallahan
16:44:34 <efelten> npdoty, his proposed language says that the data *cannot* be attributed to a data subject.
16:44:47 <eberkower_> eberkower_ has joined #dnt
16:44:56 <mecallahan> justin:  thought FTC /DAA language was sufficiently strong and allowed flexibility to accomplish to be the exisiting standard
16:45:06 <tlr> q?
16:45:08 <peterswire> q?
16:45:12 <mecallahan> .... yellow standard not sufficiently robust
16:45:30 <mecallahan> ...under common understanding of tracking, still allow tracking in DNT! which is inappropriate
16:45:32 <efelten> Which state is "yellow" in the DAA proposal?   Is de-identified yellow, or is de-linked yellow?
16:45:34 <johnsimpson> q?
16:45:34 <npdoty> efelten, well, unless the data to make the connection to a real-name has distinct technical and organizational controls
16:45:47 <rvaneijk> ACK rvaneijk
16:45:47 <mecallahan> ...justin not wedded to DAA language but best alternative so far
16:45:52 <rvaneijk> q-
16:46:04 <mecallahan> peterswire:  anything to be added?
16:46:05 <jmayer> q+
16:46:10 <justin> efelten, deidentified is yellow under industry proposal.
16:46:15 <mecallahan> ... the queue on deid
16:46:16 <efelten> Thx
16:46:34 <justin> You could at least stop targeting :)
16:46:40 <rvaneijk> ok, then we are done.
16:46:40 <mecallahan> zaneis:  same statement as 2 years ago, it is impossilbe to stop tracking consumers [inaudible]
16:46:53 <peterswire> q?
16:46:56 <jchester2> +q
16:46:58 <wseltzer> s/consumers [inaudible]/from a consumer perspective/
16:47:12 <mecallahan> ...we keep going down same worm hole, i hope in next 3 weeks, trying to be achievable and have substantive discussions
16:47:13 <aleecia> Well, no, this is important: if we cannot stop tracking users than we cannot have a consensus standard.
16:47:17 <johnsimpson> Are you saying you won't honor DNT?
16:47:34 <mecallahan> ... we narrowed the issues, inc issues we really care about
16:47:38 <jchester2> Rigo should ask Mike to  explain, please.
16:47:39 <peterswire> close q
16:47:43 <aleecia> It is important to understand that. And I appreciate the honesty.
16:47:50 <johnsimpson> q?
16:47:52 <npdoty> Zakim, please close the queue
16:47:52 <Zakim> ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed
16:48:05 <npdoty> ack aleecia
16:48:12 <mecallahan> peterswire goes to queue re de-id, promises process discussions at end of call
16:48:33 <jchester2> Can Rigo place on the record why he thinks this is so, please.
16:48:40 <jchester2> -q
16:48:45 <mecallahan> aleecia:  keeping on de-id.  if take unique  ID and you replace with another randomly generated unique ID, bad for privacy
16:48:46 <dsinger> q?
16:48:57 <mecallahan> ...if you change the link, that could be good for privacy
16:49:11 <mecallahan> ...only way to be viable is guidelines on how long they can be linked
16:49:20 <rvaneijk> in addition to ALeecia, WP29 is working on guidance on anonymisation techniques.
16:49:33 <mecallahan> ...that is minimum o fwhat Aleecia needs to be useful.  otherwise privacy risks are the same.
16:50:14 <tlr> peter: we are asking for various submissions by this coming tuesday
16:50:15 <jchester2> Thomas--is the translation of what Rigo is saying is let DAA bury themselves
16:50:17 <jchester2> +q
16:50:37 <npdoty> Zakim, please open the queue
16:50:37 <Zakim> ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is open
16:50:38 <jchester2> Peter:  You are now discussing process, yet didn't want to discuss process.
16:50:39 <npdoty> q+ jchester2
16:50:42 <npdoty> Zakim, please close the queue
16:50:42 <Zakim> ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed
16:50:51 <peterswire> q?
16:50:55 <mecallahan> peterswire:  w3c asking for subm ission by week from friday.  in addition, there is written public record on these issues, chair will be mindful of that dialog/record, will look at record to make sure all issues addressed, not playing gotcha.  [foresadow procedure]
16:51:13 <mecallahan> zaneis asks to respond.  he will go after the q.
16:51:18 <TS> Dan´s approach: Data can be considered de-identified if it has been deleted, modified, aggregated, anonymized or otherwise manipulated in order to achieve a reasonable level of justified confidence that the data cannot reasonably be used to infer information about, or otherwise be linked to, a particular user, user agent, or device.   Thomas´ approach: Data is considered de-identified when data that has been collected is altered or otherwise processed so that it can
16:51:27 <mecallahan> jmayer asks question on de-id:
16:51:29 <npdoty> ack jmayer
16:51:47 <Zakim> -BerinSzoka
16:51:52 <TS> cannot be attributed to a data subject without the use of additional data which is subject to separate and distinct technical and organisational controls to ensure such non attribution, or when such attribution would require a disproportionate amount of time, expense and effort.  Differences: Dan´s approach force us to define the word anonymize. The reasonable level of justified confidence is in my view pretty weak. The “German” idea is quite stronger as the link to
16:51:59 <TS> a data subject (user as a natural person) is prohibited per definition. And my proposal also reflects some remaining risk that such data could be linked and this reflects a debate we had in Cambridge in Feb 2013.
16:52:27 <mecallahan> ...trying to understand/reconcile DAA proposal.  how do the two pieces mesh?  data should be able to reassocaited to user?  yellow state we heard does not have those privacy properties.  would the yellow states be de-id?
16:52:46 <mecallahan> peterswire:  shane uses the word deid to apply to yellow state
16:53:20 <mecallahan> ...under propsoed langauge is de-id, the normative language, and mike says cd be examples of implementing that cd be shane's appraoch/examples.
16:53:22 <rvaneijk> when yellow = de-identified, is where we disagree on the definition
16:53:34 <johnsimpson> mike you're breaking up
16:53:37 <jmayer> If I may, that didn't answer my question.
16:54:08 <rigo> the question is how much is allowed then under yellow state. If it is treated like "not personal data", then I personally do not find this acceptable
16:54:14 <npdoty> I think Jonathan's question is that the normative text doesn't seem to agree with what Shane has presented about real-time bucketing
16:54:17 <mecallahan> jmayer:  gets the notion that yellow and deid are supposed to lien up.  but how are they supposed to line up?
16:54:34 <rigo> and agree with Aleecia that it is not convincing to replace one uniqueID by another
16:54:36 <mecallahan> ...i dont see how the text allows this.
16:55:12 <mecallahan> look at point 1, "taken reasonable steps to ensure"... as we know from data science, in fact pseudonymous datA can be linked to a specific device.
16:55:25 <mecallahan> ...does this text have a different meaning?
16:55:38 <tlr> q+
16:55:49 <jchester2> Zakim, unmute me
16:55:49 <Zakim> jchester2 should no longer be muted
16:55:54 <npdoty> ack jchester2
16:56:05 <mecallahan> peterswire:  it would be helpful if zaneis can answer in writing to jmayer's questions, on the list.
16:56:25 <efelten> I wonder if anybody on this call understands the DAA's proposed text.
16:56:26 <mecallahan> ...scribe did not get the question right, see, clarifications.
16:56:39 <aleecia> So to try earnestly to be productive, one way to get to "yellow" could be to specify hashing with a new key every month.
16:56:48 <jchester2> zakim, mute me
16:56:48 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
16:56:49 <mecallahan> jchester2:  questions on process/procedure.  Jeff feels he is being railroaded.
16:56:58 <tlr> ack thomas
16:57:05 <mecallahan> peterswire promises 15 minutes re process at end of meeting
16:57:09 <johnsimpson> I do not understand the DAA text.  The DAA reps clearly don't understand it.
16:57:19 <npdoty> Zakim, please open the q
16:57:19 <Zakim> I don't understand 'please open the q', npdoty
16:57:24 <npdoty> Zakim, please open the queue
16:57:24 <Zakim> ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is open
16:57:30 <justin> aleecia, You are arguing into the wind, industry has said repeatedly they're not willing to put those sorts of numbers into text.
16:57:38 <aleecia> I know.
16:57:43 <johnsimpson> I had some questions that were never answered as well.
16:57:44 <mecallahan> ThomasR a little frustrated about lack of details to his questions, requests written responses to his Monday questions from DAA
16:57:49 <aleecia> But I'm trying to find a way, any way, to save this.
16:57:50 <jchester2> Yes, written answers and time for discussion on next week's call.
16:57:51 <moneill2> alleecia, so if you visit the same site within a month they can still track you?
16:57:57 <jmayer> Aleecia, that particular technical design would still not ensure that "the data cannot reasonably be re-associated or connected to a specific user" in a plain meaning.
16:57:59 <aleecia> Where "this" is Do Not Track
16:58:03 <npdoty> s/ThomasR/tlr: /
16:58:07 <mecallahan> ...apprciate the context, but DAA has not answered the questions.  seeking written responses.
16:58:09 <tlr> zakim, mut me
16:58:10 <Zakim> I don't understand 'mut me', tlr
16:58:12 <tlr> zakim, mute me
16:58:12 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
16:58:16 <justin> If there's a way, that's probably not it.
16:58:36 <aleecia> jmayer, in some cases you are correct. In some it would help, maybe by enough
16:58:47 <johnsimpson> To whom do we address questions about the DAA proposal?
16:58:53 <peterswire> yianni -- please put URL into IRC for your 1st party/3d party language
16:58:57 <aleecia> tlr's fingers are used to mutt :-)
16:59:00 <mecallahan> zaneis:  quick rapup:  DAA happy to provide detailed answers to jonathan's questions, and to Thomas;s.  Aleecia's comment very helpful on when de linking occurs, and how do we get there, we need a conversation/discussion.  that wd be productive.
16:59:06 <jchester2> DAA, please respond in writing to Rob's proposal.  We need a public discussion on the issue he has raised.
16:59:15 <Yianni> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0050.html
16:59:18 <mecallahan> ...DAA will provide comments when people get back, DAA will be diligent.
17:00:05 <mecallahan> ...re: jmayer question, how the stds marry up with shane's proposal.  that is good disucssion too, lets have that disucssion.  we are trying to not have too much non normative text, but if that helps clarify the picture, DAA open to doing that as well.
17:00:08 <dsinger> I think an informative document/annex would be a great step (mining the old compliance document, DAA text, and so on)
17:00:08 <tlr> thanks, and apologies, Peter, for talking over you.
17:00:11 <aleecia> I'm seeing three paths: (1) toss out the red-yellow-green approach. (2) tighten down what it means for data to become "yellow" which right now is nearly useless. (3) tighten down what can happen with data in "yellow" state, which right now is nearly everything, including serving targeted ads.
17:00:12 <tlr> zakim, mute me
17:00:12 <Zakim> Thomas was already muted, tlr
17:00:19 <npdoty> Topic: First in Third Context
17:00:19 <aleecia> I was working on (2)
17:00:22 <mecallahan> peterswire:  new topic, first party in 3rd party context
17:00:38 <mecallahan> ...yianni, can you explain new language/proposal.
17:01:05 <npdoty> Yianni's proposal is here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0050.html ; and other change proposals on this question: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_First_Party_Compliance
17:01:05 <mecallahan> yianni:  dont know if a lot of agreement on the new proposed langugae, but looking for some agreement
17:01:08 <aleecia> Right now, we have a proposal for DNT that allows no less tracking than for users who do not send DNT:1
17:01:17 <mecallahan> ...primary issues is transparency
17:01:34 <mecallahan> ...when first party uses infor in thrid party context, not transparency
17:02:07 <jchester2> Can you give some examples please of what kind of branding would be required?
17:02:11 <mecallahan> ...this proposal wd allow clear branding so that the consumer wd know it was from first party, who "to blame"
17:02:17 <aleecia> I appreciate Mike's points -- and calm tone -- around what industry can willingly agree to. But it should be pretty obvious that if tracking stays the same with and without DNT:1, it's going to be hard to get others on board.
17:02:20 <dsinger> is a facebook 'like' button considered to be 'prominent branding'?
17:02:50 <peterswire> q?
17:02:53 <Chapell> q+
17:02:57 <mecallahan> peterswire:  language proposed would not allow first party to use data in 3rd paty context UNLESS there is some clear statement.
17:02:58 <jchester2> +q
17:03:05 <dsinger> to aleecia: yes, the major change to the definition of tracking is troublesome, and a major change of direction.
17:03:09 <npdoty> dsinger, I think a "Facebook" logo on a Like button might suffice
17:03:12 <npdoty> ack Chapell
17:03:23 <mecallahan> achapell:  thanks to yianni.  how does transparency work differently than in DAA code?
17:03:30 <BillScannell> BillScannell has left #dnt
17:03:41 <mecallahan> ...DAA code is transparency model as well.  is this AdChoices icon, or more?
17:03:46 <BillScannell> BillScannell has joined #dnt
17:03:55 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
17:03:55 <mecallahan> ...if about transparency, couldnt thrid parties take advantage of that as well?
17:04:09 <justin> q+
17:04:12 <Zakim> +[Apple.a]
17:04:13 <mecallahan> Yianni:  now first parties can collect all the data they want in first party context.
17:04:15 <hober> Zakim, Apple.a has me
17:04:15 <Zakim> +hober; got it
17:04:17 <peterswire> q?
17:04:36 <mecallahan> ...as far as third party context, yianni doesnt see how 3rd parties can collect using this formula
17:04:45 <mecallahan> ...this proposal is about USE, not about COLLECTION
17:04:50 <jchester2> zakim, unmute me
17:04:50 <Zakim> jchester2 should no longer be muted
17:05:01 <mecallahan> ...this proposal is differnet from DAA collection and use icon/adchoices
17:05:13 <justin> This seems to require more branding than a mere icon.
17:05:21 <mecallahan> chapell:  how is DAA and Yianni prposal different?
17:05:21 <justin> If not, it should.
17:05:32 <mecallahan> peterswire:  recommends follow up off line.
17:05:49 <mecallahan> Yianni:  will think about what "prominent branding" examples/non normaative
17:05:49 <Chapell> q+
17:05:56 <npdoty> ack jchester
17:06:05 <mecallahan> jchester2:  wants to know what prominent branding means.
17:06:15 <Zakim> + +1.202.257.bbee
17:06:28 <jchester2> zakim, mute me
17:06:28 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
17:06:33 <rigo> q+ to ask whether prominent branding would not lead to two first parties on the same site as proposed by Rob Sherman?
17:06:34 <mecallahan> yianni:  prominent branding in spec rigfht now with multiple parties as well
17:06:40 <aleecia> Here is my concern. If browsers implement DNT as DAA proposes, it crosses deceptive practices, since it does not change tracking.
17:06:40 <mecallahan> ...to think more about it
17:06:40 <peterswire> q?
17:06:44 <moneill2> UAs should send cookies: to 3rd parties when DNT:1
17:06:55 <moneill2> *not*
17:07:01 <mecallahan> justin:  in the past, justin had been supportive of first data in 3rd context,
17:07:01 <peterswire> close q
17:07:08 <npdoty> Zakim, bbee may be [Facebook]
17:07:08 <Zakim> +[Facebook]?; got it
17:07:12 <npdoty> Zakim, please close the queue
17:07:12 <Zakim> ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed
17:07:23 <npdoty> ack justin
17:07:24 <mecallahan> ...branding approach is a clever way to do that than unidentifed icon
17:07:35 <aleecia> The browsers could pull the feature completely, or could implement their own view of what DNT is, neither of which is a good outcome.
17:07:56 <mecallahan> ...one idea occurring is that if DNT1 can use first party data in 3rd context, need own 1st party opt out
17:08:04 <mecallahan> ...not sure good idea, but recommend considering it.
17:08:10 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
17:08:28 <mecallahan> ...if indicate a desire to not be tracked, the first party publisher should consider own opt out
17:08:30 <npdoty> -1 for creating another two-layer opt-out, if it makes people confused about DNT being an opt-out
17:08:56 <johnsimpson> +1 to Nick
17:09:10 <mecallahan> chapell:   larger issue:  if w3c is going to take this approach, need to communicate what DNT means
17:09:12 <TS> TS has left #dnt
17:09:22 <rigo> ack ri
17:09:22 <Zakim> rigo, you wanted to ask whether prominent branding would not lead to two first parties on the same site as proposed by Rob Sherman?
17:09:23 <mecallahan> ...and large entities can do whatever they want.
17:09:32 <justin> npdoty, Yeah, I get the limitations, but at least there are first-party relationships in place, as opposed to market research industry.
17:09:34 <npdoty> Chapell, I think in the proposal that large parties couldn't collect data in a third-party context, the same way that other third parties couldn't
17:09:38 <rigo> zakim, unmute me
17:09:38 <Zakim> Rigo should no longer be muted
17:09:38 <mecallahan> rigo:  cant hear rigo
17:09:41 <Zakim> -TS?
17:10:07 <mecallahan> rigo:  as soon as good into "branding" issue, create two competing rule sets for similar use sets
17:10:15 <mecallahan> ...what happens w two parties on one side?
17:10:19 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
17:10:27 <mecallahan> ...give first party privilelges back in
17:10:36 <aleecia> +1
17:10:39 <Chapell> If DNT turns out to be: a) eliminating third-party tracking and b) large first parties can do whatever they want so long as they meet branding requirements --- then we have a requirement to disclose this in both our w3c docs and in the UA disclosure guidelines
17:10:41 <moneill2> +1
17:10:44 <mecallahan> ...creates complexity within the rule set, destroys the clarity of hte rule set
17:11:10 <mecallahan> peterswire:  to the extent the standard is sets of rules around 1st party and different sets of rules around 3rd parties
17:11:23 <public> public has joined #dnt
17:11:32 <mecallahan> ...third parties express concern about 1st/3rd impact, disparate impact
17:11:44 <Chapell> I would be curious to understand what our colleagues who are regulators think about the potential anti-competitive impact of this approach
17:11:49 <Chapell> Ed? Rob?
17:11:55 <npdoty> Chapell, but you recognize that large first parties would face the same limits about collecting data in the third party context (for example, Facebook and Google collect data in third-party contexts now as well as in their first-party context), right?
17:11:56 <mecallahan> ...patrolling this line bw the 1st/3rd and related roles, quite important to consider
17:12:17 <mecallahan> ...which is why peterswire asked yianni to draft this proposal.
17:12:19 <jchester2> +q
17:12:21 <npdoty> Topic: Procedure
17:12:24 <npdoty> Zakim, please open the queue
17:12:24 <Zakim> ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is open
17:12:25 <mecallahan> peterswire moving to procedure.
17:12:29 <npdoty> q+ jchester2
17:12:38 <npdoty> q- Chapell
17:12:38 <mecallahan> ...working w w3c staff, important end of july deadline.
17:12:54 <mecallahan> ...trying to get substantial sense of where we are by end of july
17:13:03 <mecallahan> ...last call may have some things left open
17:13:09 <Chapell> npdoty, i recognize that there migth be some limits on first parties under this standard - whether they are significant or not is an open question
17:13:23 <mecallahan> ...end of july is basic sense of where we are heading.
17:13:41 <mecallahan> ...june draft a pretty good sense of what kind of standard june draft cd be.
17:13:51 <mecallahan> ...june daft is one direction.
17:14:13 <mecallahan> ...another path supported by a set of actors that have a lot of websites and eco participation, and working group participation, is DAA/Zaneis
17:14:19 <mecallahan> that wd look different than june draft.
17:14:33 <mecallahan> ...hopefully todays convo helps understand, along with answering questions
17:14:39 <jmayer> +q
17:14:51 <efelten> +q
17:14:52 <mecallahan> ...head towards perfecting amendments by Tuesday on DAAA
17:15:05 <mecallahan> ....call next wednesday work through these issues
17:15:14 <mecallahan> ...point is, clarify the two basic directions
17:15:18 <dsinger> are you asking the group the question "should we take the DAA proposal as the baseline text?" (and dump the old compliance and the June draft)????
17:15:25 <mecallahan> ...clarify reasons to support or not support,
17:15:32 <mecallahan> ...issues such as deid
17:15:56 <mecallahan> ...in nine days, submit objections on the record/written views on where we are
17:16:17 <mecallahan> ...the two choices before you are a strong record for a Chairs Decision
17:16:22 <mecallahan> ...that is basic approach
17:16:32 <johnsimpson> record for a chair's decision on what?
17:16:37 <mecallahan> ...peterswire doesnt see a way to avoid such a Chairs Decision
17:16:40 <jchester2> zakim, unmute me
17:16:40 <Zakim> jchester2 should no longer be muted
17:16:50 <mecallahan> ...swire has record that has been created already.
17:16:54 <dsinger> q?
17:16:56 <aleecia> I'll echo dsinger's question
17:16:59 <mecallahan> ...the written response/next 9 days will also help.
17:17:03 <rvaneijk> DAA proposal should be broken down into the relevant issues and put on the wiki IMHO
17:17:03 <peterswire> q?
17:17:11 <npdoty> ack jchester2
17:17:12 <mecallahan> jchester2:  what kind of record will you have?
17:17:15 <johnsimpson> q+
17:17:19 <rigo> +1 to rvaneijk
17:17:28 <mecallahan> ...how was the decision to have DAA draft presented as one of the two options?
17:17:37 <dsinger> do we have the 'why' for each change in the DAA draft?
17:17:41 <mecallahan> ...lots of efforts editing june draft, short time period.
17:17:45 <aleecia> +1 to rvaneijk as that is what we do
17:17:57 <mecallahan> ...we had a week, and now it sounds until Tuesday to respond to DAA draft.
17:18:16 <mecallahan> ...recommend structuring convo with appropriate specialists, etc., to have a good conversation.
17:18:17 <peterswire> q?
17:18:27 <mecallahan> ...that issue (deid) alone could take 2 hrs.
17:18:35 <jchester2> zakim, mute me
17:18:35 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
17:18:43 <mecallahan> ...repeat question on decision on DAA draft as one of 2 options
17:18:47 <aleecia> q+
17:18:53 <npdoty> ack jmayer
17:18:57 <mecallahan> petersiwre:   his decision in consultation w w3c stafff.
17:19:04 <aleecia> The answer on how you reached a decision is that you reached the decision? I don't get that answer.
17:19:19 <mecallahan> jmayer:  having spent time on issue by issue on june draft, could we carry over hard work to the DAA draft?
17:19:56 <mecallahan> petersiwre:  every submission on change/rationale, statements, etc., so for lots of issues, recent, clear views of issues.  that in many instances will be highly relevant
17:20:04 <jmayer> That didn't answer my question.
17:20:07 <aleecia> Peter is dropping out
17:20:20 <mecallahan> ...hope that work will be highly useful for any decision on how to sum up/end work in july.
17:20:20 <tlr> aleecia, not here
17:20:30 <aleecia> tlr thanks
17:20:50 <mecallahan> jmayer:  asked for text responses from DAA.  will the existing text responses be sufficient, or do we have to generate a new fresh set of responses for DAA?
17:21:01 <dsinger> are you asking (a) 'should we take the DAA proposal as basis?' or (b) 'what changes would you want on the DAA text if we were to take it as basis?'
17:21:02 <mecallahan> peterwire asked npdoty to answer
17:21:06 <peterswire> q?
17:21:10 <justin> Do I have to document all the times I *didn't* object to language in the June draft?
17:21:11 <jmayer> s/from DAA/to DAA proposal/
17:21:14 <mecallahan> npdoty:  lots of proposals come through, w3c documenting.
17:21:32 <mecallahan> ...DAA might be a package that CANNOT be broken up, how they work togehter as a piece
17:21:39 <peterswire> q?
17:21:43 <mecallahan> ...recommend addressing DAA as a package
17:21:57 <npdoty> ack efelten
17:21:58 <aleecia> Yet we've done that and have two drafts along those lines that we incorporated in a consensus document
17:22:05 <mecallahan> efelten: proces going forward is chair decision on DAA v juen draft?
17:22:13 <mecallahan> ...and then after that what happens?
17:22:30 <mecallahan> peterswire:  chair's decision, then the group in its wisdom meets.
17:22:38 <mecallahan> efelten:  and then after that?
17:22:40 <aleecia> bad connection, recalling
17:22:47 <mecallahan> ..what if switch to DAA?
17:22:47 <Zakim> -Aleecia
17:22:57 <jmayer> +q
17:23:03 <tlr> q+
17:23:05 <mecallahan> peterswire:  fair question, hasnt worked it out fully yet.
17:23:16 <tlr> q-
17:23:18 <aleecia> could someone please augment scribing?
17:23:19 <mecallahan> efelten: is there going to be opportunitiy to propose changes to draft?
17:23:22 <npdoty> I think most of the already documented change proposals would still apply
17:23:34 <jmayer> How can we hold an informed vote on the DAA proposal if we don't know the extent to which it can be revised?
17:23:42 <Zakim> +Aleecia
17:23:46 <mecallahan> peterswire:  DAA would not be final standard, wd need additional work
17:24:09 <mecallahan> efelten:  text proposals would be considered or thrown out?
17:24:19 <npdoty> peterswire: even if a decision on either the DAA or the June draft, would still need to address the change proposals already documented
17:24:30 <npdoty> s/if a decision/after a decision/
17:24:31 <rvaneijk> If the DAA proposal is a all or nothing package we might as well do a vote today
17:24:41 <mecallahan> peterswire:  DAA proposed package, there would be process to test that out, clarity about fundamentally after july
17:24:51 <peterswire> q?
17:24:51 <mecallahan> efelten: issue by issue?
17:24:55 <mecallahan> peterswire: yes
17:25:09 <justin> So, first *perfecting* friendly amendments to DAA text, and then arguments on which text, and THEN we work through whichever draft.  I think.
17:25:21 <mecallahan> johnsimpson:  chairs decision is on which of the two baselines?
17:25:35 <mecallahan> peterswire:  yes, and reasons given why elements are positive/negative.
17:25:50 <mecallahan> johnsimpson:  need formal explanations on DAA proposal.
17:25:59 <efelten> Yes, and "work through" means going area-by-area where we have had text proposals against the current draft.
17:26:03 <mecallahan> ...DAA is completely murky.  who is part of the DAA team?
17:26:16 <peterswire> q?
17:26:20 <efelten> (That's my understanding of what Peter said.)
17:26:22 <mecallahan> peterswire:  we had a scribed conversation and asked for help.
17:26:34 <rigo> ack johnsimpson
17:26:38 <rigo> ack aleecia
17:26:40 <mecallahan> aleecia:  quite a few issues about where we are
17:26:42 <jchester2> We need to know exactly who endorsed the DAA proposal and which ones have contributed to paying for Peter's work on DNT.
17:27:02 <mecallahan> ...as she understands, two paths:  Chair draft, DAA soon to be final draft of proposal.
17:27:16 <mecallahan> ...two complete proposals which we had in a consensus draft, side by side.
17:27:34 <mecallahan> ...aleecia resubmitted text before deadline.  why not considering that version?
17:27:38 <justin> ?
17:27:45 <mecallahan> petersiwre:  lots of people asking for lots of things.
17:27:57 <peterswire> q?
17:28:05 <tlr> q+
17:28:05 <mecallahan> aleecia:  DAA proposal has trumped the consensus proposal that has been worked on for two years.
17:28:12 <mecallahan> peterswire: ok.
17:28:18 <tlr> q-
17:28:18 <jchester2> So Peter made the decision to ignore the consenus proposal,  I would like him to explain this in writing please, which should be distributed to the news media.
17:28:20 <Zakim> -[CDT]
17:28:21 <mecallahan> ...we are not consdiering the consensus proposal at this time.
17:28:36 <peterswire> q?
17:28:40 <johnsimpson> I don't see why the DAA gets standing for its proposal
17:28:42 <mecallahan> aleecia: i appreicate that clarity that consensus proposal as off the table.
17:28:42 <dsinger> I believe that the 'old' consensus document is still a source of text, idea, issues, and history, no matter what basis we use going ahead
17:28:48 <tlr> +1 to David
17:29:12 <mecallahan> jmayer:  question about what the impact of selecting a baseline is?
17:29:29 <mecallahan> ...is it a document about w3c conversation/template for submitting issue by issue rationales?
17:29:41 <mecallahan> or some impact of selecting a baseline on substative and procedural issues?
17:30:01 <mecallahan> ...if there isnot consensus, does baseline trump?  presumption of baseline stds?
17:30:02 <aleecia> Just to get this clear: Peter has just explained that my proposal to include consensus text from prior drafts, submitted on time, has been summarily discarded. The work of the group is discarded. Our options are DAA or Peter's own text, with no oportinities for other texts.
17:30:11 <tlr> aleecia, not discarded.
17:30:20 <aleecia> Thomas... please.
17:30:41 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:30:47 <mecallahan> peterswire:  the core points are picking a direction.  beyond that, in DAA, there are specific issues in there.  if DAA text were picked as baseline, there is an overall structure and logic.
17:31:04 <mecallahan> ... amendments tested to see if they make sense /logic to the DAA proposal.
17:31:12 <jmayer> Ok, so the suggestion is that certain amendments to the DAA document would be impermissible?
17:31:19 <jmayer> Which amendments, then?
17:31:20 <mecallahan> ...if june text, the amendments will also be considered.
17:31:29 <mecallahan> ...there are lots of proposed edits to June text.
17:31:40 <aleecia> It might also have helped to have some notion that brand new approaches were invited, rather than changes to Peter's draft. That was not announced either.
17:31:43 <mecallahan> ...other options include consensus draft, or another option.
17:31:49 <aleecia> And it might have helped to have more than a week.
17:32:10 <mecallahan> .peterswire:  basic decision bw two paths.
17:32:11 <aleecia> The group *has* reached consensus on the draft I submitted, which is the entire point.
17:32:20 <mecallahan> ...there are areas that are clearly different.
17:32:28 <aleecia> Yes, it had alternatives in it. But that was where the options were.
17:32:36 <mecallahan> chair will try to write up reasonable decision, and then decide what to do next.
17:32:41 <jmayer> This still doesn't answer my question. We don't have clarity on the proposed decision.
17:32:46 <dsinger> If I had known that 'replace X with Y' was a reasonable change proposal, I might also have tried to write one (or get a team to)
17:32:46 <mecallahan> ..end of july intended to be meaningful, not to be punt.
17:32:58 <aleecia> dsinger, +1
17:33:02 <jchester2> Peter, please place on the record--prior to your decision--the specific names of the working group members who have contributed to paying your salary and expenses.  Thanks,
17:33:09 <dsinger> If this is intended to be derailing, it's succeeding.  Thanks so much
17:33:09 <aleecia> though again would have needed more than 7 days
17:33:18 <johnsimpson> +1 to David
17:33:20 <mecallahan> peterswire:  132pm, gone thorugh the queue.  please read emails re work plan.
17:33:25 <aleecia> This is so painful
17:33:33 <jmayer> The proposal it to agree to a new baseline. With no clarity on what having a new baseline means.
17:33:33 <Zakim> -Yianni
17:33:34 <Zakim> -adrianba
17:33:34 <Zakim> -[FTC]
17:33:35 <Zakim> -eberkower
17:33:35 <Zakim> -Rigo
17:33:37 <Zakim> -PaulGlist
17:33:37 <Zakim> -Aleecia
17:33:37 <Zakim> - +1.813.732.aall
17:33:38 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
17:33:38 <Zakim> - +1.323.253.aakk
17:33:38 <Zakim> -WaltMichel
17:33:39 <Zakim> -omertene
17:33:39 <Zakim> -mike_zaneis?
17:33:40 <Zakim> -jackhobaugh
17:33:40 <Zakim> -Thomas
17:33:40 <Zakim> -efelten
17:33:41 <Zakim> -Brooks
17:33:41 <Zakim> -RichardWeaver
17:33:41 <Zakim> -[Facebook]?
17:33:41 <mecallahan> end call.
17:33:42 <Zakim> -Craig_Spiezle
17:33:42 <Zakim> -Yianni.a
17:33:42 <Zakim> -vincent
17:33:43 <Zakim> -Jules_Polonetsky
17:33:43 <Zakim> -[Apple.a]
17:33:43 <Zakim> -johnsimpson
17:33:44 <Zakim> -moneill2
17:33:44 <Zakim> - +1.650.595.bbdd
17:33:45 <Zakim> -Chris_Pedigo
17:33:46 <Zakim> -BillScannell
17:33:48 <Zakim> -[Apple]
17:33:49 <Zakim> -Wendy
17:33:49 <Zakim> -jchester2
17:33:50 <Zakim> -ninjamarnau
17:33:51 <Zakim> -rachel_n_thomas
17:33:55 <Zakim> -schunter
17:34:00 <Zakim> -dwainberg
17:34:04 <Zakim> -Peder_Magee
17:34:42 <npdoty> Zakim, list attendees
17:34:42 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +49.172.147.aaaa, +31.65.141.aabb, npdoty, +1.215.480.aacc, rvaneijk, +1.202.347.aadd, WaltMichel, +1.202.262.aaee, jackhobaugh, Thomas,
17:34:45 <Zakim> ... Wendy, +972.8.979.aaff, jchester2, +1.609.258.aagg, +1.202.478.aahh, +49.172.147.aaii, omertene, efelten, dwainberg, +1.646.654.aajj, PaulGlist, eberkower, +1.323.253.aakk,
17:34:45 <Zakim> ... schunter, +1.813.732.aall, +1.202.257.aamm, +1.202.478.aann, rachel_n_thomas, +1.202.697.aaoo, Aleecia, +1.303.746.aapp, +1.202.587.aaqq, [Microsoft], paulohm, +1.301.365.aarr,
17:34:49 <Zakim> ... dsinger, BerinSzoka, +44.186.558.aass, Keith_Scarborough, sidstamm, Brooks, +1.202.603.aatt, +1.646.278.aauu, adrianba, [CDT], Rigo, Peter_4As, +49.431.98.aavv,
17:34:49 <Zakim> ... +44.186.558.aaww, mecallahan, ninja?, +1.571.213.aaxx, RichardWeaver, ninjamarnau, Suzanne?, johnsimpson, +1.650.365.aayy, Chris_Pedigo, Chapell, Jonathan_Mayer,
17:34:52 <Zakim> ... +1.202.787.aazz, Peder_Magee, moneill2, BillScannell, +49.211.600.4.bbaa, TS?, peterswire, Craig_Spiezle, [FTC], mike_zaneis?, +33.6.50.34.bbbb, vincent, +1.202.587.bbcc,
17:34:52 <Zakim> ... Jules_Polonetsky, +1.650.595.bbdd, lauren?, [Apple], hober, +1.202.257.bbee, [Facebook]?
17:34:52 <Zakim> -Keith_Scarborough
17:35:21 <Zakim> -[Microsoft.a]
17:35:51 <Zakim> -npdoty
17:35:55 <npdoty> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:35:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/07/03-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
17:35:59 <Zakim> -Chapell
17:36:04 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has left #dnt
17:45:22 <Zakim> -mecallahan
18:00:36 <Zakim> -lauren?
18:04:11 <Zakim> -Jonathan_Mayer
18:06:39 <Zakim> - +1.650.365.aayy
18:06:40 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
18:06:40 <Zakim> Attendees were +49.172.147.aaaa, +31.65.141.aabb, npdoty, +1.215.480.aacc, rvaneijk, +1.202.347.aadd, WaltMichel, +1.202.262.aaee, jackhobaugh, Thomas, Wendy, +972.8.979.aaff,
18:06:40 <Zakim> ... jchester2, +1.609.258.aagg, +1.202.478.aahh, +49.172.147.aaii, omertene, efelten, dwainberg, +1.646.654.aajj, PaulGlist, eberkower, +1.323.253.aakk, schunter, +1.813.732.aall,
18:06:41 <Zakim> ... +1.202.257.aamm, +1.202.478.aann, rachel_n_thomas, +1.202.697.aaoo, Aleecia, +1.303.746.aapp, +1.202.587.aaqq, [Microsoft], paulohm, +1.301.365.aarr, dsinger, BerinSzoka,
18:06:41 <Zakim> ... +44.186.558.aass, Keith_Scarborough, sidstamm, Brooks, +1.202.603.aatt, +1.646.278.aauu, adrianba, [CDT], Rigo, Peter_4As, +49.431.98.aavv, +44.186.558.aaww, mecallahan,
18:06:45 <Zakim> ... ninja?, +1.571.213.aaxx, RichardWeaver, ninjamarnau, Suzanne?, johnsimpson, +1.650.365.aayy, Chris_Pedigo, Chapell, Jonathan_Mayer, +1.202.787.aazz, Peder_Magee, moneill2,
18:06:45 <Zakim> ... BillScannell, +49.211.600.4.bbaa, TS?, peterswire, Craig_Spiezle, [FTC], mike_zaneis?, +33.6.50.34.bbbb, vincent, +1.202.587.bbcc, Jules_Polonetsky, +1.650.595.bbdd, lauren?,
18:06:45 <Zakim> ... [Apple], hober, +1.202.257.bbee, [Facebook]?
19:08:13 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
20:36:10 <jamie> jamie has joined #dnt
20:53:54 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
21:14:50 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
21:40:05 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dnt
21:44:19 <schunter1> schunter1 has joined #dnt
22:35:09 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt