15:49:50 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:49:50 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/07/17-dnt-irc
15:49:52 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:49:52 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dnt
15:49:54 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
15:49:54 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:49:55 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:49:55 <trackbot> Date: 17 July 2013
15:49:58 <npdoty> Zakim, this will be 87225
15:49:58 <Zakim> ok, npdoty; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
15:50:08 <npdoty> chair: peterswire
15:51:58 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:52:00 <Zakim> +npdoty
15:52:06 <rachel_n_thomas> rachel_n_thomas has joined #dnt
15:52:43 <Zakim> + +31.65.141.aaaa
15:52:43 <Zakim> - +31.65.141.aaaa
15:52:43 <Zakim> + +31.65.141.aaaa
15:52:53 <rvaneijk> Zakim, aaaa is me
15:52:53 <Zakim> +rvaneijk; got it
15:53:05 <aerber> aerber has joined #dnt
15:53:41 <Zakim> + +1.212.768.aabb
15:54:03 <rachel_n_thomas> zakim, aabb is rachel_n_thomas
15:54:03 <Zakim> +rachel_n_thomas; got it
15:54:20 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
15:55:01 <eberkower> eberkower has joined #dnt
15:55:59 <CraigSpiezle-OTA> CraigSpiezle-OTA has joined #dnt
15:56:20 <Zakim> + +1.646.654.aacc
15:56:28 <eberkower> Zakim, aacc is eberkower
15:56:28 <Zakim> +eberkower; got it
15:56:31 <jackhobaugh> jackhobaugh has joined #dnt
15:56:45 <Yianni> Yianni has joined #dnt
15:57:24 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
15:57:29 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
15:57:34 <Zakim> + +1.202.587.aadd
15:57:53 <Zakim> +Fielding
15:57:56 <Zakim> + +1.678.492.aaee
15:58:06 <Yianni> Zakim, aadd is Yianni
15:58:06 <Zakim> +Yianni; got it
15:58:12 <Zakim> + +1.202.344.aaff
15:58:12 <Yianni> Zakim, mute me
15:58:13 <Zakim> Yianni should now be muted
15:58:13 <Zakim> + +31.62.125.aagg
15:58:14 <Zakim> +SusanIsrael
15:58:18 <Zakim> +RichardWeaver
15:58:21 <BrianH> BrianH has joined #dnt
15:58:24 <susanisrael> susanisrael has joined #dnt
15:58:28 <Mike_Zaneis> Mike_Zaneis has joined #dnt
15:58:30 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:58:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see npdoty, rvaneijk, rachel_n_thomas, eberkower, Yianni (muted), Fielding, +1.678.492.aaee, +31.62.125.aagg, +1.202.344.aaff, SusanIsrael, RichardWeaver
15:58:36 <Richard_comScore> Richard_comScore has joined #dnt
15:58:42 <Zakim> + +1.202.347.aahh
15:58:42 <Zakim> + +1.202.345.aaii
15:58:55 <jackhobaugh> Zakim, aahh is jackhobaugh
15:58:55 <Zakim> +jackhobaugh; got it
15:58:58 <Zakim> + +1.916.212.aajj
15:59:00 <kj> kj has joined #dnt
15:59:02 <BrianH> zakim 202.345
15:59:10 <bryan> bryan has joined #dnt
15:59:10 <paulohm> paulohm has joined #dnt
15:59:16 <Joanne> Joanne has joined #dnt
15:59:22 <Zakim> +Chris_IAB
15:59:26 <Zakim> + +1.202.331.aakk
15:59:31 <npdoty> Zakim, aaii is BrianH
15:59:31 <Zakim> +BrianH; got it
15:59:34 <npdoty> Zakim, aaee is Brooks
15:59:34 <Zakim> +Brooks; got it
15:59:35 <Chris_IAB> Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
15:59:36 <moneill2> moneill2 has joined #dnt
15:59:44 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:59:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see npdoty, rvaneijk, rachel_n_thomas, eberkower, Yianni (muted), Fielding, Brooks, +31.62.125.aagg, +1.202.344.aaff, SusanIsrael, RichardWeaver, jackhobaugh,
15:59:47 <Zakim> ... BrianH, +1.916.212.aajj, Chris_IAB, +1.202.331.aakk
15:59:52 <Zakim> - +1.202.331.aakk
15:59:56 <Zakim> + +1.303.492.aall
16:00:00 <Chris_IAB> Just joined from 202
16:00:01 <Mike_Zaneis> 202.344.aamm
16:00:01 <paulohm> zakim, aall is me
16:00:01 <Zakim> +paulohm; got it
16:00:02 <Joanne> Zakim, aajj is Joanne
16:00:03 <Zakim> +Joanne; got it
16:00:04 <Zakim> +Peder_Magee
16:00:09 <Zakim> +BerinSzoka
16:00:11 <Joanne> Zakim, mute me
16:00:11 <Zakim> Joanne should now be muted
16:00:15 <Zakim> + +1.646.827.aamm
16:00:15 <magee2023263538> magee2023263538 has joined #dnt
16:00:15 <WileyS> WileyS has joined #dnt
16:00:15 <Zakim> +Bryan_Sullivan
16:00:17 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
16:00:32 <Zakim> +JeffWilson
16:00:33 <Zakim> + +1.650.595.aann
16:00:44 <ChrisPedigoOPA> ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:00:46 <Zakim> + +1.202.331.aaoo
16:00:47 <Zakim> + +1.203.563.aapp
16:00:49 <Zakim> + +44.186.558.aaqq
16:00:50 <Ari> Ari has joined #dnt
16:00:51 <JC> JC has joined #DNT
16:00:51 <npdoty> Zakim, aaff may be Mike_Zaneis
16:00:51 <Zakim> +Mike_Zaneis?; got it
16:00:52 <Chris_IAB> 212-380
16:00:53 <jchester2> jchester2 has joined #dnt
16:00:53 <Zakim> +WileyS
16:01:04 <Zakim> + +1.408.836.aarr
16:01:11 <moneill2> zakim,aaqq is me
16:01:11 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
16:01:14 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:01:20 <Zakim> +Chris_Pedigo
16:01:23 <vinay> vinay has joined #dnt
16:01:23 <kulick> kulick has joined #dnt
16:01:27 <Zakim> +jchester2
16:01:28 <jchester2> zakim, mute me
16:01:28 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
16:01:32 <Zakim> +hefferjr
16:01:35 <Zakim> + +1.646.666.aass
16:01:35 <Zakim> +JoeHallCDT
16:01:37 <npdoty> Zakim, aagg is kj
16:01:37 <Zakim> +kj; got it
16:01:44 <efelten> efelten has joined #dnt
16:01:46 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:01:56 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see npdoty, rvaneijk, rachel_n_thomas, eberkower, Yianni (muted), Fielding, Brooks, kj, Mike_Zaneis?, SusanIsrael, RichardWeaver, jackhobaugh, BrianH, Joanne
16:01:59 <Zakim> ... (muted), Chris_IAB, paulohm, Peder_Magee, BerinSzoka, +1.646.827.aamm, Bryan_Sullivan, JeffWilson, +1.650.595.aann, +1.202.331.aaoo, +1.203.563.aapp, moneill2, WileyS,
16:01:59 <Zakim> ... +1.408.836.aarr, [Microsoft], Chris_Pedigo, jchester2 (muted), hefferjr, JoeHallCDT, +1.646.666.aass
16:02:10 <Zakim> + +1.301.365.aatt
16:02:11 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:02:17 <Zakim> + +1.609.258.aauu
16:02:18 <Marc_> Marc_ has joined #dnt
16:02:25 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:02:25 <efelten> Zakim, aauu is me
16:02:25 <Zakim> +efelten; got it
16:02:25 <peterswire> peterswire has joined #dnt
16:02:26 <robsherman> robsherman has joined #dnt
16:02:38 <Zakim> + +1.650.365.aavv
16:02:45 <David_MacMillan> David_MacMillan has joined #dnt
16:03:03 <Chapell> Chapell has joined #DNT
16:03:05 <dwainberg> zakim, aamm is dwainberg
16:03:05 <Zakim> +dwainberg; got it
16:03:08 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
16:03:11 <Zakim> +[Adobe]
16:03:16 <adrianba> zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
16:03:16 <Zakim> +adrianba; got it
16:03:20 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:03:23 <ninjamarnau> ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
16:03:24 <vinay> zakim, [Adobe] is vinay
16:03:24 <Zakim> +vinay; got it
16:03:25 <cOlsen> cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:03:27 <npdoty> Zakim, aapp is Nielsen
16:03:27 <Zakim> +Nielsen; got it
16:03:28 <Chapell> 646 666 is chapell
16:03:28 <Zakim> +Aleecia
16:03:30 <Yianni> Yes, i can do that
16:03:32 <kulick> 408.836.aarr is me
16:03:34 <npdoty> Zakim, aass is Chapell
16:03:34 <Zakim> +Chapell; got it
16:03:36 <Yianni> scribenick: Yianni
16:03:38 <Zakim> + +43.198.8aaww
16:03:38 <Zakim> + +1.650.787.aaxx
16:03:40 <npdoty> Zakim, aarr is kulick
16:03:40 <Zakim> +kulick; got it
16:03:51 <BerinSzoka> BerinSzoka has joined #DNT
16:03:52 <Lmastria_DAA> Lmastria_DAA has joined #dnt
16:03:57 <Yianni> Peter: Greetings everyone, thank you for being on the call
16:04:05 <Zakim> +[FTC]
16:04:11 <Yianni> ...we are going to do our business on the agenda
16:04:21 <schunter> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see npdoty, rvaneijk, rachel_n_thomas, eberkower, Yianni (muted), Fielding, Brooks, kj, Mike_Zaneis?, SusanIsrael, RichardWeaver, jackhobaugh, BrianH, Joanne
16:04:24 <Zakim> ... (muted), Chris_IAB, paulohm, Peder_Magee, BerinSzoka, dwainberg, Bryan_Sullivan, JeffWilson, +1.650.595.aann, +1.202.331.aaoo, Nielsen, moneill2, WileyS, kulick, [Microsoft],
16:04:24 <Zakim> ... Chris_Pedigo, jchester2 (muted), hefferjr, JoeHallCDT, Chapell, +1.301.365.aatt, [IPcaller], efelten, +1.650.365.aavv, adrianba, vinay, Aleecia, +43.198.8aaww, +1.650.787.aaxx,
16:04:24 <Zakim> ... [FTC]
16:04:25 <Yianni> ...Nick, did change proposal get updated on the website
16:04:30 <Yianni> Nick: not yet
16:04:53 <Yianni> Peter: the text that went out earlier to day by Kathy Joe and me, I'm going to ask you to find the email from me
16:04:59 <rvaneijk> q+ would like to ask how we get NoGo on the agenda next week.
16:05:00 <Yianni> ...9:48am Eastern time
16:05:06 <rvaneijk> q+ would like to ask how we get NoGo on the agenda next week
16:05:12 <Yianni> ...Issue-25 text to be discussed on today's call
16:05:18 <Chris_IAB> link?
16:05:27 <Yianni> ...text that has been subject to a lot of work in the last few months
16:05:30 <rvaneijk> q+ would like to ask about NoGo on the agenda
16:05:48 <Yianni> ...Kathy there was an email by Rob van Eijk with clarifying questions
16:05:54 <Zakim> +Keith_Scarborough
16:05:56 <Zakim> +[Apple]
16:05:57 <hober> Zakim, Apple has me
16:05:57 <npdoty> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0418.html
16:05:58 <Zakim> +hober; got it
16:06:03 <Yianni> ...could you point us to what you had said in answer to Rob's questions
16:06:20 <hwest> hwest has joined #dnt
16:06:21 <peterswire> q?
16:06:21 <Keith> Keith has joined #dnt
16:06:31 <Zakim> +hwest
16:06:42 <hwest> Ready to scribe!
16:06:47 <npdoty> scribenick: hwest
16:06:49 <rvaneijk> q+ just send additional clarifying questions to the list
16:06:54 <Zakim> + +1.202.587.aayy
16:07:13 <hwest> peterswire: Clarifying question will be helpful to have up
16:07:17 <hefferjr> hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:07:39 <hwest> ... rvaneijk has engaged extensively with kathyjoe on Audience Measurement
16:07:57 <jules_polonetsky> jules_polonetsky has joined #dnt
16:08:12 <hwest> kathyjoe: Two questions. In the AM data, is the same ID attatched to the retargeted ad across sites
16:08:13 <rvaneijk_> rvaneijk_ has joined #dnt
16:08:14 <Zakim> - +43.198.8aaww
16:08:24 <AdamP> AdamP has joined #dnt
16:08:31 <Zakim> +Dan_Auerbach
16:08:35 <peterswire> if someone could post rob's questions to the list, that would be great
16:08:47 <rvaneijk_> I just posted some more clarifying questions to the list
16:08:48 <rvaneijk_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0420.html
16:08:49 <Zakim> + +49.431.98.aazz
16:08:59 <hwest> Is that written up somewhere/ I missed half of it, sorry
16:09:03 <ninjamarnau> zakim, aazz is ninjamarnau
16:09:03 <Zakim> +ninjamarnau; got it
16:09:14 <rvaneijk_> Thanks Kathy
16:09:18 <susanisrael> *heather, it is on the list
16:09:26 <rvaneijk_> Peter these are fine answers.
16:09:37 <Zakim> + +44.142.864.bbaa
16:09:38 <hwest> peterswire: rvaneijk_ , can you give us any response to whether your concerns were addressed on clarifying questions?
16:09:44 <Zakim> + +1.215.480.bbbb
16:09:47 <rvaneijk_> problems with micro
16:09:54 <npdoty> Zakim, bbaa is AdamPhillips
16:09:54 <Zakim> +AdamPhillips; got it
16:10:11 <hwest> rvaneijk_: Thanks to Kathy, answers on the mailing list do answer the concerns that I had
16:10:12 <WaltMichel> WaltMichel has joined #DNT
16:10:19 <hwest> ... Posted additional questions to the list, if we have time
16:10:55 <hwest> peterswire: rvaneijk_, your questions may be shorter to address. Goal is to see whether AM is ready to go to base text by consensus today.
16:10:56 <matt> matt has joined #dnt
16:11:13 <hwest> peterswire: Does opt out provide collection limitation?
16:11:30 <hwest> kathyjoe: It would, in line with text we've posted. Tried to make use case as narrow as possible. Industry opt out along those lines.
16:11:37 <npdoty> Kathy's responses to Rob's initial questions (with formatting fix): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0421.html
16:12:08 <hwest> ... Two levels of info required. That's why we want something explaining to consumers what data is collected and why, and how it's used.
16:12:10 <aleecia> aleecia has joined #dnt
16:12:15 <hwest> ... Principle of transparency
16:12:32 <peterswire> q?
16:12:38 <hwest> ... Would design platform to allow people to see what data is collected and who received, other piece is a way to signal it on the sites so that people can see that that is present.
16:12:48 <hwest> ... Brings awareness to the usage.
16:13:05 <hwest> ... Users may be aware of advertising but not this measurement
16:13:29 <hwest> rvaneijk_: Regarding second question, if we grant a permitted use, and the user also has an opt out, which trumps?
16:14:07 <eberkower> Opt out cookie rules
16:14:14 <hwest> kathyjoe: I don't know that we've gotten into those details, but if someone has said they want to opt out of that use, we would expect that would be the opt out
16:14:35 <hwest> peterswire: Possible to move forward on this even if DNT is delayed?
16:14:40 <justin> justin has joined #dnt
16:14:57 <hwest> kathyjoe: I know that earlier discussion was that this transparency would help the industry
16:14:58 <dwainberg> q+
16:15:15 <hwest> ... I think group felt that this could go forward in any case
16:15:32 <hwest> peterswire: Other concerns?
16:15:46 <hwest> rvaneijk_: Does the opt out as envisioned have collection limitation?
16:15:49 <hwest> kathyjoe: Yes.
16:15:52 <tlr> q+
16:15:52 <npdoty> should we do that for the other permitted uses? users should also have an option to go industry sector by industry sector to obtain opt-out cookies?
16:15:54 <tlr> q-
16:15:58 <npdoty> ack dwainberg
16:16:05 <dan_auerbach> dan_auerbach has joined #dnt
16:16:20 <hwest> dwainberg: Can someone explain the difference between how data is collected under this PU and other PUs? Having a hard time understanding the delta between the final state of AM data and other PUs
16:16:33 <dan_auerbach> q?
16:16:41 <hwest> peterswire: June draft as base test, series of minimization and other requirements for all PUs. This would fall under those.
16:16:55 <jules_polonetsky> Zakim, 202.487 is Jules_Polonetsky
16:16:55 <Zakim> sorry, jules_polonetsky, I do not recognize a party named '202.487'
16:17:07 <hwest> ... And then additional series of promises in connection with activities that would take advantage of AM use
16:17:24 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:17:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see npdoty, rvaneijk, rachel_n_thomas, eberkower, Yianni (muted), Fielding, Brooks, kj, Mike_Zaneis?, SusanIsrael, RichardWeaver, jackhobaugh, BrianH, Joanne
16:17:27 <Zakim> ... (muted), Chris_IAB, paulohm, Peder_Magee, BerinSzoka, dwainberg, Bryan_Sullivan, JeffWilson, +1.650.595.aann, +1.202.331.aaoo, Nielsen, moneill2, WileyS, kulick, [Microsoft],
16:17:27 <Zakim> ... Chris_Pedigo, jchester2 (muted), hefferjr, JoeHallCDT, Chapell, +1.301.365.aatt, [IPcaller], efelten, +1.650.365.aavv, adrianba, vinay, Aleecia, +1.650.787.aaxx, [FTC],
16:17:27 <Zakim> ... Keith_Scarborough, [Apple], hwest, +1.202.587.aayy, Dan_Auerbach, ninjamarnau, AdamPhillips, +1.215.480.bbbb
16:17:32 <Zakim> [Apple] has hober
16:17:33 <hwest> ... Would be subject to industry self-reg org as discussed this mornign
16:17:34 <dan_auerbach> apologies, I got on the call late, would someone be kind enough to repost Ed's questions?
16:17:45 <npdoty> Present+ jules_polonetsky
16:17:52 <hwest> dwainberg: This allows data collected and associated with unique IDs?
16:17:59 <hwest> peterswire: That's my understanding
16:17:59 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Mayer
16:18:23 <peterswire> q?
16:18:42 <npdoty> Ed's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0419.html
16:18:52 <hwest> efelten: There are two questions. One, notion of pseudonymization in the text. What does that mean, different than de-id?
16:18:55 <Zakim> +Amy_Colando
16:18:57 <eberkower> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0420.html
16:19:33 <Zakim> + +33.6.50.34.bbcc
16:19:45 <vincent> zakim, bbcc is vincent
16:19:45 <Zakim> +vincent; got it
16:19:47 <hwest> peterswire: I think that in this case pseudonymization has meaning in EU context.
16:19:58 <hwest> ... Well developed understanding in that structure.
16:19:59 <Zakim> + +1.415.627.bbdd
16:20:03 <justin> My understanding is that pseudonymization is designed to prevent linking to traditional PII.  Deidentification is designed to prevent linking to PII or device.
16:20:14 <moneill2> +q
16:20:32 <hwest> kathyjoe: Struggled with that a bit given three-state discussion.
16:20:50 <hwest> ... Trying to describe the outcome, but not describe the technical means.
16:21:15 <peterswire> q?
16:21:31 <hwest> ... Not named or gov identifier. Can't say who that person is.
16:21:35 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:21:52 <johnsimpson> apologies, horrible LAS traffic….
16:21:54 <Lmastria_DAA> self regulatory programs that allow user-based opt out and transparency sound very good and are very effective ... happy to share more info so that we all recognize what protections are already in market and providing effective, enforceable choice
16:22:08 <hwest> ... Distinguish between users, but don't need to know who they are.
16:22:40 <hwest> efelten: Ambiguous what unique identifiers are ok and aren't.
16:22:56 <hwest> kathyjoe: Trying to avoid that, since ad tech can change quickly. Want to define by the outcome.
16:23:13 <Zakim> +johnsimpson
16:23:15 <jchester2> We need the clarity Ed is proposing before we can consider the measurement proposal.
16:23:25 <npdoty> kj, would distinguishing individuals but not being linked back to a real person just fit with the definition of de-identified? that is, cannot be linked back to a user, user agent or device?
16:23:25 <hwest> efelten: I need to know what "identify" means if I'm to implement.
16:23:59 <hwest> efelten: Second question, independant certification process? Why?
16:24:30 <rvaneijk> we need another word for pseudonymized, better is de-identified (ftc term)
16:25:21 <johnsimpson> q?
16:25:28 <hwest> kathyjoe: Build trust with users, especially if invisible. Main players right now could put together the basic platform, and others would be welcome to join. Need some sort of assessment whether orgs are applying the restrictions.
16:25:33 <npdoty> rvaneijk, do you think "pseudonymized" in the proposal would actually satisfy the "de-identified" definition? (if so, that would make things much easier)
16:25:44 <hwest> peterswire: Points out that it says "a generally accepted org" not a specific one
16:25:47 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:25:58 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.301.365.aatt (71%), +1.650.787.aaxx (55%)
16:25:58 <dwainberg> q+
16:26:00 <hwest> efelten: [somethng] that actualyl match this text
16:26:07 <rvaneijk> no, on the contrary. pseudonymized is linkable, the Yellow state, for 53 weeks.
16:26:10 <BerinSzoka> feedback on the phone is REALLY bad
16:26:18 <hwest> Sorry all, I cant hear
16:26:23 <johnsimpson> can't here
16:26:23 <Lmastria_DAA> 3rd party enforcement of self reg principles are a great idea and can bring about wonderful compliance...ask us about 19 public cases in 18 months
16:26:27 <Chris_IAB> can't hear as well
16:26:28 <npdoty> Zakim, mute aaxx
16:26:28 <Zakim> +1.650.787.aaxx should now be muted
16:26:28 <hober> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:26:28 <johnsimpson> can't hear
16:26:30 <BerinSzoka> Folks, please mute yourself!
16:26:38 <npdoty> ack moneill
16:26:39 <Zakim> hober, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: moneill2 (68%), +1.301.365.aatt (33%)
16:26:51 <peterswire> q?
16:26:51 <jchester2> I hear it.
16:26:58 <hwest> moneill2: Not sure this is well understood word in EU
16:27:11 <hwest> ... As I understand it, means something along the lines of unique identifiers
16:27:36 <npdoty> q+
16:27:41 <Zakim> - +1.650.787.aaxx
16:27:41 <rvaneijk> WP29 is working on an guidelines for anonimyzation. (as previously announced)
16:27:44 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:28:00 <npdoty> ack dwainberg
16:28:03 <hwest> dwainberg: Not directly to AM issue, but related. In reading your explanatory document, you focussed on distinction between DNTrack and DNTarget.
16:28:15 <hwest> ... Want to understand principle behind to crafting PUs here
16:28:42 <aleecia> +1 to David's question
16:28:46 <Zakim> - +1.415.627.bbdd
16:28:55 <Chris_IAB> it's an excellent question-- thanks David
16:29:13 <ninjamarnau> q+
16:29:28 <jchester2> Thank you Yanni.  Maybe you are paid by the word or citation!
16:29:29 <hwest> peterswire: Broad question, but will answer in connection with AM. In that regard, Yianni has put a huge amount of work in this week [thank you!]
16:29:30 <eberkower> Yes, thank you, Yianni
16:29:34 <npdoty> "tracking" in the June draft (and in most of our iterations on that definition) refers to retention (or collection) as well as use
16:29:39 <rvaneijk> Thanks Yianni !
16:29:42 <dwainber_> dwainber_ has joined #dnt
16:29:43 <hwest> ... In terms of AM PU, number of things different from general questions in base text
16:29:57 <hwest> ... I have thought that KathyJoe and her group have worked very hard to engage on them
16:30:04 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
16:30:22 <Zakim> + +1.650.787.bbee
16:30:23 <npdoty> Zakim, aatt is peterswire
16:30:23 <Zakim> +peterswire; got it
16:30:24 <dwainbe__> dwainbe__ has joined #dnt
16:30:36 <jchester2> +q
16:30:40 <hwest> ... AM text for today starts with a number of safeguards that have led me to believe that it was a PU that would help contextual advertising to happen on the internet.
16:30:51 <hwest> ... There's been language about contextual ads being ok in the draft for a long time
16:31:00 <hwest> ... Knowing who goes to different contexts has been consistent on that
16:31:08 <hwest> ... Targetted on the content rather than the individual
16:31:18 <Zakim> -Peder_Magee
16:31:23 <hwest> ... AM that we have in front of us as a first step could be related to de-id definition
16:31:32 <Zakim> -Amy_Colando
16:31:33 <Zakim> +??P91
16:31:36 <laurengelman> laurengelman has joined #dnt
16:31:37 <dan_auerbach> I'm hesitant to get on the queue since I came late, but I'm genuinely confused about *why* audience measurement is needed as a permitted use, as opposed to being under the blanket of de-identification (or green)
16:31:39 <jchester2> This isn't about contextual advertising really Peter---this is about evolving multiplatform measurement built in to a user/network behavior.
16:31:43 <hwest> ... But certainly not raw, no need to re-engage on full de-id def
16:31:49 <hwest> ... Must not be shared unless de-id
16:32:05 <hwest> ... Roughly speaking in the 'green' category
16:32:14 <hwest> ... Must be deleted or de-id ASAP, 53 week limit
16:32:59 <hwest> ... Must not be used for other purpose, including profile or alter user experience
16:33:06 <hwest> ... Clearly eliminates targetting
16:33:09 <Zakim> +Amy_Colando
16:33:12 <hwest> ... For data in this use
16:33:26 <hwest> ... In addition, someone other than the company involved in regularity and transparency
16:33:32 <WileyS> Prescriptive timeframe that works for one company/business model - not a good direction for a generally applicable standard that will be applied to many companies and business models.
16:33:53 <hwest> ... We've had this for six months, the group has engaged. Procedurally, we should be able to decide whether to put into the base text.
16:33:54 <aleecia> Dan, I believe we haven't had your question answered directly, though Ed asked generally how it fits with other permitted uses. That said, it does look like there are some areas of overlap and some that are not.
16:33:57 <fielding> dan_auerbach, your own text would forbid the collection of data via a persistent identifier unless it is covered by a permitted use
16:34:04 <hwest> ... All the general PU protections otherwise in the text.
16:34:21 <Zakim> +??P92
16:34:25 <rvaneijk> For the minutes, a permitted use under DNT will NOT make it legally compliant in the EU. That is a seperate thing.
16:34:27 <hwest> ... Folks who have been uncomfortable have reached a level of comfort.
16:34:30 <laurengelman> Zakim, ??P92 is laurengelman
16:34:30 <Zakim> +laurengelman; got it
16:34:31 <peterswire> q?
16:34:35 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:34:50 <Zakim> + +1.202.257.bbff
16:34:58 <hwest> dwainberg: So our principle is that no targeting is allowed, but collection is allowed with appropriate protections
16:35:02 <robsherman> zakim, bbff is robsherman
16:35:02 <Zakim> +robsherman; got it
16:35:08 <Lmastria_DAA> come talk to us about privacy protections, choice and transparency as well as use limitations, safeguards and adoption across US and EU
16:35:13 <johnsimpson> q?
16:35:15 <hwest> peterswire: "No targeting" may be interpreted incorrectly, but DNT changes the way that targeted ads are permitted.
16:35:19 <aleecia> q+
16:35:21 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:35:25 <jchester2> there's noise on the line.
16:35:28 <hwest> ... [something] related to the unique id discussion
16:35:32 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.650.787.bbee (9%)
16:35:39 <npdoty> Zakim, mute bbee
16:35:39 <Zakim> +1.650.787.bbee should now be muted
16:35:39 <hwest> ... Saying no targeting is not the intent here, I think
16:36:00 <peterswire> q?
16:36:15 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:36:22 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
16:36:24 <hwest> npdoty: Follow up on efelten . KathyJoe said that it would be valuable to have an oversight or certification org.
16:36:35 <jmayer> jmayer has joined #dnt
16:36:38 <hwest> ... Lots of members of the group have worked on that kind of thing. Not sure we need that in the text in particular.
16:36:49 <hwest> ... Would be great for AM orgs to do that, but is that necessary for the meaning of the signal?
16:36:56 <Lmastria_DAA> so, is w3c picking which business models it supports
16:37:10 <aleecia> (If it is required, we should wait for it to exist before we take up this issue)
16:37:13 <Zakim> -Jonathan_Mayer
16:37:49 <WileyS> So 3rd party audit is required per the DNT standard?
16:37:53 <peterswire> q?
16:37:54 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Mayer
16:37:56 <npdoty> q-
16:38:22 <hwest> kathyjoe: Most of the companies within this area are part of another group. AM and research are trying to say we're not doing the same function. It's a different function and not well known.
16:38:43 <jmayer> I'm struggling to see how this proposed text remedies privacy risks. The "pseudonymized" approach is *identical* to the yellow state that the chairs just rejected.
16:38:43 <hwest> ... This is part of the necessary education, to make transparent to the user.
16:38:48 <hwest> ... That's why we put it in the normative text.
16:38:53 <rvaneijk> Kathy, if you tell people audience measurement is WEB ANALYTICS, everybody understands it
16:39:20 <jmayer> q+
16:39:22 <npdoty> ack ninjamarnau
16:39:28 <jchester2> Zakim, unmute me
16:39:28 <Zakim> jchester2 should no longer be muted
16:39:54 <hwest> ninjamarnau: Still reluctant about AM PU. Don't see a reason to do AM on users which send DNT1 and not AM on de-id data or based on users' exceptional content [is that right?]
16:40:02 <hwest> ... Let's not confuse de-id and pseudonymization
16:40:06 <npdoty> thanks for the response, Kathy, I have been thinking that transparency and trust is certainly valuable but that it's unlikely that users are going to read the full Compliance spec
16:40:29 <hwest> ... Can be used to discriminate whether you know their name or not
16:40:32 <npdoty> s/content/consent/
16:40:48 <moneill2> +q
16:40:59 <hwest> ... Measurement is 'unique visitors'. If you can't say you have unique visitors, you don't have a currency/business
16:41:04 <hwest> ninjamarnau: But how long do you need it?
16:41:10 <johnsimpson> Agree with Ninja
16:41:27 <jchester2> I agree with Ninja as well.
16:41:44 <Marc_> I'm am confused by Peter's statement today that saying "no targeting is not the intent here" when the document the co-chairs issued says "The June Draft...would turn off ad targeting..."
16:41:46 <hwest> peterswire: Important piece of this is promise to start with opted in panels with full consent, but info for PU is used to calibrate the panels
16:42:12 <johnsimpson> Why can't you calibrate with users who don't have DNT:1?
16:42:18 <Lmastria_DAA> hmmmm...who has use limitations against adverse determinations? oh, yes. DAA
16:43:08 <hwest> jchester2: Thanks for your work, all. This can't go to base text. It's not about contextual, you need to look at measurement in contemporary forms.
16:43:10 <moneill2> I agree with Ninja also, if you just need to detect unique visitors the identifier should last no longer than needed for that purpose
16:43:14 <peterswire> q?
16:43:19 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
16:43:20 <hwest> ... Really about interactions of individuals with content in cross-platform way.
16:43:27 <hwest> This group has made advances, but many questions left.
16:43:28 <npdoty> ack jchester
16:43:32 <jmayer> moneill2, why use an identifier at all if all you're doing is unique-ing visitors?
16:43:50 <hwest> ... Panel users given inducements to give up their privacy
16:43:57 <hwest> ... I think we need another week, at the very least
16:44:11 <moneill2> jmayer, only if you need it. I agree it could be done in localStorage or something
16:44:27 <jmayer> moneill2, can you think of a time you would need it?
16:44:33 <jchester2> zakim, mute me
16:44:33 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
16:44:34 <johnsimpson> Suppose audience measurement is NOT adopted as a permitted use. What collection and retention activities would be prohibited that are necessary for audience measurement purposes?
16:44:34 <npdoty> ack aleecia
16:44:36 <dan_auerbach> fielding -- apologies was writing an email -- why are unique identifiers needed for *all* users
16:44:40 <dan_auerbach> ?
16:44:45 <moneill2> jmayer, hours only
16:44:53 <dan_auerbach> elections can be predicted when only 1% of the vote comes in
16:45:19 <hwest> aleecia: Echoing some point. Need more time with text to understand it. I am going to echo Nick, pointing to an external body that doesn't exist is a problem in a standards text, since this needs to be testable.
16:45:24 <peterswire> q?
16:45:31 <hwest> ... That strikes me as non-normative text.
16:45:41 <hwest> ... This needs to live without the notion of something external that we can't control.
16:45:42 <aleecia> Must be pseudonymized before statistical analysis begins, such that unique key-coded data are
16:45:43 <aleecia> used to distinguish one individual from another without identifying them
16:45:51 <WileyS> Dan - depends on volume - election predictions are often wrong at lower volumes (and cause news groups to have to amend their predictions as more data comes in)
16:45:54 <jmayer> moneill2, why IDs at all? Why not use localStorage for short term, too?
16:46:03 <johnsimpson> Why if industry offers an opt-out, can't DNT be the opt out?
16:46:10 <hwest> ... Finally, on substance, text pasted - re-iterate long standing objection with replacing one random number with another random number.
16:46:18 <jchester2> +John
16:46:18 <moneill2> jmayer, yes that would be better
16:46:21 <hwest> ... That doesn't move the ball forward.
16:46:33 <dan_auerbach> +q
16:46:37 <hwest> ... We have talked about whether a headcount of users who have turned on DNT is reasonable.
16:46:44 <Chris_IAB> btw, would like to remind folks that we are working on a SPEC, not a standard-- standards established through widespread adoption
16:46:50 <Zakim> -laurengelman
16:46:54 <fielding> dan_auerbach, you asked the question of why it is proposed as a permitted use instead of out of scope, and that is why. I don't have any insight into the need for calibration, but it has been explained suffiiciently to make a decision and move on.
16:47:00 <hwest> ... This is a challenge to this PU, lots to get me confortable with this PU
16:47:17 <hwest> ... This seems to violate proportionality
16:47:27 <hwest> ... On the other hand, understand that measurement is extremely important to business
16:47:53 <hwest> ... Want some way that we can do this better - open challenge. Is there a way to do this without measuring everyone who doesn't want to be, but allows business function?
16:47:58 <hwest> ... Want longer on this text.
16:48:05 <hwest> peterswire: Reaction to org in non-nrom?
16:48:13 <hwest> kathyjoe: That's a reasonable comment.
16:48:21 <fielding> q+
16:48:22 <peterswire> q?
16:48:27 <peterswire> please close the Q
16:48:28 <npdoty> efelten, would moving the auditing organization out of normative text help your concern?
16:48:32 <npdoty> Zakim, please close the queue
16:48:32 <Zakim> ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed
16:48:32 <fielding> hah!
16:48:51 <aleecia> <grin> at Roy
16:49:02 <hwest> ... for AM research, to deliver quality of results, will be the people who haven't turned DNT on, for statistical reliability you can't
16:49:10 <hwest> ... That's what the headcount is used for
16:49:10 <rvaneijk> q?
16:49:19 <hwest> ... We did discuss that with jchester2 on the phone
16:49:25 <efelten> npdoty, yes, my question was about why the spec would require it.  I totally understand the rationale for having non-normative text on this.
16:49:29 <hwest> ... Whether it's used to change ads in flight - it's not
16:49:30 <dan_auerbach> fielding, if it has been sufficiently explained, shouldn't we be able to answer basic questions about why it's needed?
16:49:42 <peterswire> q?
16:49:46 <hwest> Yianni or susanisrael - can one of you take over?
16:49:54 <Yianni> Heather I can take over
16:49:59 <npdoty> scribenick: Yianni
16:50:14 <susanisrael> tx yianni.  Let me know if you need me to relieve you.
16:50:15 <hwest> Thanks, Yianni! You get a virtual superhero cape.
16:50:21 <Yianni> Kathy: people receiving audience measurement just want to know how many people saw the content
16:50:41 <Yianni> ...saying how many people saw it, or exposure of content, is something that is neccesary for normal business online
16:50:44 <fielding> it has been explained -- it is needed to calibrate the panels. Whether that need is sufficient to justify the collection is a value judgement, not a question.
16:50:59 <peterswire> q?
16:51:07 <aleecia> keeping a year to calibrate panels makes no sense to me
16:51:07 <Yianni> ...so the retention period as well, someone is not going to go and demand audience measurement for print or something else
16:51:27 <Yianni> ...there may be concerns about wording of pseudonymized, we welcome any improvements
16:51:39 <aleecia> this is why i'm fundamentally confused about what this tries to accomplish.
16:51:40 <Yianni> ...we are not interested in a particular individual, no return path
16:51:45 <npdoty> ack jmayer
16:51:49 <Yianni> Peter: going to q
16:52:16 <Yianni> jmayer: 2 questions.  I understand calibrate.  But I am less ure of validate and calculate
16:52:32 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:52:38 <Yianni> Peter: have Kathy respond in batch to all four questions
16:52:58 <Yianni> jmayer: 2nd question: this text is subject to separate textual provision of not using unique identifiers
16:53:21 <jchester2> Key question Jonathan raises re: June draft.
16:53:22 <susanisrael> jmayer, you are not following a person around the web, you are noting how many unique people visit a piece of content.
16:53:30 <Yianni> ...when messing the two texts together, giving privacy preserving approached, this text in June draft would require a unique identifier?
16:53:31 <Zakim> +??P53
16:53:41 <peterswire> q?
16:53:43 <johnsimpson> q?
16:53:47 <npdoty> ack dan_auerbach
16:53:48 <peterswire> sorry mike!!
16:53:51 <peterswire> mis-read the list
16:54:05 <Yianni> Auerbach: my question is about calibration, my understanding from sunnyvale, it was really not needed for calibration to have a unique id
16:54:13 <jmayer> susanisrael, the proposal would allow collecting a user's browsing history. That's what I mean by "following a person around the web."
16:54:18 <Yianni> ...people delete cookies commonly, and other techniques are used
16:54:28 <npdoty> ack moneill
16:54:40 <Yianni> moneill: I agree with Aleecia, you need a real good reason to allow
16:54:51 <Yianni> ...I can see if it is a limited purpose, you could make a good case
16:55:11 <Zakim> -JoeHallCDT
16:55:18 <Yianni> ...is the only reason to keep unique id is to detect unique visitors
16:55:28 <npdoty> ack fielding
16:55:29 <Yianni> ...we could probably come up with a way to not keep a unique id for 53 weeks
16:55:33 <susanisrael> moneill, I believe that like financial and accounting uses, this facilitates the payment for content.
16:55:42 <Yianni> Fielding: I think we have discussed enough and can move to a decision
16:55:50 <Yianni> ...no side will change with furthur discussion
16:55:50 <WileyS> How do you recommend determining uniques outside of an unique ID?  Since # crunching occurs on the backend - at some point you need to pass something that defines uniques to the backend for aggregate reporting.
16:56:06 <WileyS> This is where client side storage (local store) fails
16:56:07 <Yianni> ...the 53 weeks is not needed, data should be removed as soon as calibration occurs
16:56:16 <Yianni> ...would be more on the order of 2 weeks, not 53 weeks
16:56:29 <npdoty> "Must be deleted or de-identified as early as possible after the purpose of collection is met" (53 weeks comes as a separate clause)
16:56:31 <Yianni> ...what they consider a reasoable amount of time is not relevant for DNT:1 users
16:56:32 <jchester2> The 53 weeks is too long, and not needed for seasonal analysis for that duration.
16:56:41 <jmayer> To clarify, here are my two questions: 1) What do "validate" and "calculate" mean?  Would they allow something like present web analytics?  2) How does this proposed text mesh with the text on limiting unique identifiers?  If existing proposals for privacy-preserving audience measurement are inadequate, why?
16:56:45 <Yianni> Peter: Dan asked a question about we do not need that
16:56:56 <dan_auerbach> elections can be predicted with only 1% reporting
16:57:00 <vincent> jmayer, susanisrael couldn't we use a mechanism similar to what has been proposed fro "frequency capping": hashing <UID, visited_URL> ?
16:57:01 <jmayer> WileyS, this is technically trivial.
16:57:06 <Yianni> ...if DNT:1 is a low percent that is one kind of validation, if DNT:1 is 98% that could really pose a problem
16:57:23 <Yianni> ...jmayer second question, fit with no unique identifiers
16:57:39 <jmayer> +q
16:57:48 <Yianni> ...have not spent time thinking about unique id for certain sorts of things, for counting unique visitors, I do not know how to count without some uniqueness
16:57:51 <jmayer> Then I would appreciate an opportunity to explain to the group, Peter.
16:57:55 <jchester2> Peter:  It's clear that additional clarity is required.
16:57:56 <dan_auerbach> I think statistically, even if DNT percentage gets very high, it is still possible to do accurate calibration without unique ids
16:58:09 <aleecia> Roy -- If we are to adopt this, I would favor the general "only as long as needed for the task" with non-normative language of 2 weeks or fewer expected, and a requirement to disclose retention over 2 weeks with why it's needed. -- does this sound reasonable to you?
16:58:10 <Chris_IAB> Peter, some of our members are already seeing 20-50% DNT
16:58:20 <Yianni> ...questions to Kathy, what does validate and calibrate mean, pseudonymized, 2 weeks vs. 53 weeks
16:58:25 <Chris_IAB> that train has left the station with default on DNT
16:58:43 <Yianni> Kathy: I think we have explained the process of opted in panels being a small percentage of users
16:58:44 <fielding> aleecia, yes, but I have no background in MR (and no implementations to check)
16:58:54 <Yianni> ...we need to see if it is a representative sample
16:58:55 <Zakim> - +1.202.331.aaoo
16:58:57 <jmayer> There are two privacy-preserving approaches that have been proposed.  1) Statistical inference from non-DNT users.  2) Privacy-preserving audience measurement (e.g. reporting unique views, but not a unique ID).
16:59:02 <Yianni> ...that is what validate and calculate is about
16:59:04 <WileyS> Jonathan - we've had that conversation - its not trivial once you factor in the complexity of multiple reporting views.  For example, a single identifier may be sliced hundreds of different ways so each of these would need to be represented on the client side for accurate outcomes.
16:59:37 <Yianni> ...question, why cannot we do it like we do on tv? Problem is an infinite number of sites, hard to measure the long-tail
16:59:46 <Zakim> + +1.510.501.bbgg
16:59:54 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:59:57 <Yianni> ...if we didn't have audience measurement, we would only buy things from the largest site as far as media
17:00:04 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.510.501.bbgg (4%), peterswire (99%)
17:00:09 <Zakim> -Bryan_Sullivan
17:00:16 <Yianni> Peter: I think we have talked about pseudonymized, what about Roy's question about 2 weeks
17:00:28 <Zakim> -hwest
17:00:29 <Yianni> Kathy: we said you should not exceed, in some cases much shorter
17:00:45 <Yianni> ...if a seasonal campaign, need to measure from one Thanksgiving to another
17:00:52 <fielding> again, this is only for calibration of the panel -- the panel data itself is kept longer.
17:00:55 <Yianni> ...cannot see if it is more or less from one Thanksgiving to another
17:00:55 <jchester2> The information on next season's holiday online planning is already available.  It's been pitched for the last 1-2 months at least.
17:00:57 <jmayer> WileyS, that's a conversation to take up on advertising reporting. That's not what's proposed here on audience measurement, so we need not address it.
17:01:10 <Zakim> - +1.215.480.bbbb
17:01:11 <dwainber_> dwainber_ has joined #dnt
17:01:23 <Yianni> ...need to confirm that statistically it is sound, not the majority of campaign, need that for maximum period to be able to sell media
17:01:24 <johnsimpson> Is the permitted use only to calibrate panels?
17:01:29 <jmayer> If this is the intent of "validate" and "calculate", then we should write it.  The present text is remarkably ambiguous.
17:01:37 <aleecia> Roy well noted, and yes, you are closer to it than I am. I'm trying to figure out how we can signal "as long as you need does not mean seven years" while addressing Shane's points on problems with inflexible hard stops for retention. I'm looking for some sort of flexibility for unforeseen, while not ending with David Singer's point that "research" starts to sound like ships doing "research" on whaling…
17:01:44 <Yianni> Peter: next procedurally is the following, I'm going to do two rounds of requets for information
17:02:01 <Yianni> ...+1 means you want this permitted uses, -1 you prefer not to have it
17:02:04 <jmayer> Peter, could you please repeat this?  Some static on the line.
17:02:12 <jchester2> Peter:  There has been a request for members of the group to discuss this among ourselves and come back with questions.  Why are you rushing this?
17:02:17 <Yianni> ...the second: separate poll of you oppose to the point that you cannot live with the text
17:02:19 <WileyS> Jonathan - there are different forms of Market Research than the singular one being discussed - the approach I've discussed is needed for many other models outside of this one.
17:02:24 <aleecia> can we not improve the text?
17:02:25 <efelten> Is the choice whether to accept a permitted use of this general type, or whether to adopt the specific proposed text as working text?
17:02:36 <jmayer> WileyS, we're talking about audience measurement here, not market research.
17:02:48 <WileyS> Jonathan - same thing for the most part
17:02:50 <peterswire> first round question: +1 or -1 on whether your view, all things considered, is to have this proposal put into base text
17:02:51 <Yianni> ...just to be clear: First round question +1 or -1 is whether your view all things considered is to have this proposal put into base text
17:03:12 <peterswire> second: "can't live with it" -- objection to consensus at that level
17:03:16 <Yianni> ...Second round if there is a bunch of support for it, whether you cannot live with it, objection to consensus at that level
17:03:24 <Yianni> ...any questions about what I am asking
17:03:30 <peterswire> +1 put it into base text
17:03:31 <Chris_IAB> what is "it"?
17:03:33 <Yianni> ...+1 put it into base text
17:03:33 <aleecia> and this is for *this specific text*
17:03:39 <peterswire> -1 don't put it into base text
17:03:41 <Yianni> ...-1 don't put it into base text
17:03:43 <efelten> Chris_IAB, I think "it" is the proposed text.
17:03:48 <susanisrael> chris_iab, "it" is the am permitted use text
17:03:48 <peterswire> this specific text
17:03:49 <jmayer> WileyS, nope. Market research was moved into de-identified data.
17:03:49 <Yianni> ...that is this specific text today
17:03:50 <jchester2> Peter--this is a very flawed poll.  It doesn't treflect the facts.  I am disappointed in your resistance to gathering information for next week's call, when it's clear there is so much miunderstanding sti;;--inc. from the chair.
17:03:59 <eberkower> +1
17:04:00 <susanisrael> +1
17:04:00 <rvaneijk> -1
17:04:00 <Richard_comScore> +1
17:04:01 <hefferjr> +1
17:04:01 <kj> +
17:04:01 <dan_auerbach> -1
17:04:01 <Yianni> ...I am now asking to put in your vote
17:04:02 <johnsimpson> -1
17:04:03 <aleecia> -1
17:04:05 <hober> -1
17:04:05 <jmayer> -1
17:04:05 <jchester2> -1
17:04:07 <WileyS> +1 (if we support friendly amendments)
17:04:11 <moneill2> -1
17:04:12 <Ari> +1
17:04:17 <Chris_IAB> +1
17:04:18 <Chapell> -1
17:04:18 <Zakim> + +49.625.796.39.bbhh
17:04:20 <robsherman> +1 (potentially with text tweaks)
17:04:22 <aleecia> Shane, it's just the text as it is :-(
17:04:26 <AdamP> +1
17:04:27 <dwainber_> -1
17:04:28 <ninjamarnau> -1
17:04:28 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
17:04:35 <vinay> +1  (with some tweaks)
17:04:38 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +49.625.796.39.bbhh (42%)
17:04:39 <WileyS> Aleecia - I don't believe that is correct
17:04:42 <npdoty> Zakim, mute bbhh
17:04:42 <Zakim> +49.625.796.39.bbhh should now be muted
17:04:44 <kulick> +1 (open for tweaks)
17:04:46 <susanisrael> wileys, I imagine friendly amendment would be accepted.  Kathy has demonstrated openness to that
17:04:48 <WileyS> I believe some tweaking is still allowed
17:04:48 <aleecia> Ed asked, Peter answered
17:04:53 <jchester2> Peter--you need to weigh the results.  The EU and privacy groups have weighed in against.
17:04:59 <WileyS> I didn't catch that then
17:05:02 <jmayer> Peter, could you please clarify whether amendments are allowed?
17:05:11 <ChrisPedigoOPA> +1
17:05:14 <peterswire> will there be friendly amendments allowed?
17:05:36 <peterswire> call for objections
17:05:37 <Yianni> Peter: would there be friendly amendments allowed? I see people say this is important to their view
17:05:47 <Yianni> ...we are now going to move to a call for objections on this
17:05:47 <peterswire> time to submit friendly or perfecting amendments
17:05:49 <fielding> note that the question was whether to include the text in the base document, not whether the issue is closed
17:05:55 <jmayer> Peter, what would be a "friendly" amendment? Shane, for example, would like this to include market research.
17:05:57 <aleecia> looks like about 14 + and 10 -, so yes, that's a split
17:06:02 <dan_auerbach> um, there are more -1s than +1s as I see it
17:06:02 <johnsimpson> Does this just allow audience calibration or other things as well?
17:06:12 <Yianni> ...time to submit friendly amendments, the friendly amendment will be due this Friday at 5pm Pacific
17:06:12 <peterswire> friendly amendments friday 5 p.m. pacific
17:06:18 <fielding> it is not a vote
17:06:22 <efelten> Still some uncertainty about what this text means.
17:06:27 <dan_auerbach> maybe we should be asking if there are objections to getting rid of the text, given the outcome of the first vote
17:06:34 <Zakim> + +1.202.257.bbii
17:06:37 <WileyS> Jonathan - I have a few text edits I would suggest would better respresent a broadly application of what is being sought.  What you call "it" is secondary to me.
17:06:42 <peterswire> write objections, with a poll, date for that will be determined after today's call
17:06:44 <jchester2> Peter--that is too short a time.  NGOs certainly have a lot of work to do.   You are rushing this through without due process on the issue.
17:06:47 <Yianni> ...then comments will be due, time to write objections, the data will be determined after today's call
17:06:47 <dan_auerbach> ah ok i suppose I miscounted
17:06:50 <WileyS> s/broadly/broader
17:06:56 <Mecallahan> Mecallahan has joined #Dnt
17:07:05 <jmayer> What happened to the second round of +1/-1?
17:07:09 <Yianni> ...we clearly have a spread of views with strong support and clear opposition, and some desire for friendly amendments
17:07:17 <Yianni> ...thank you Kathy for the work your group has done
17:07:21 <aleecia> lol, so did i. but it's close to an even split, and as Roy points out, it's not a vote
17:07:32 <Yianni> ...looking at the agenda, the next item is security and fraud detection
17:07:36 <npdoty> Topic: Security and Fraud
17:07:37 <efelten> Wait, is there a decision?
17:07:40 <Yianni> ...there are 3 change proposals up on the list
17:07:50 <Yianni> ...the first is a proposal from Chris Mejia
17:07:57 <aleecia> it would be good to scribe what comes next
17:07:58 <Zakim> -Amy_Colando
17:07:58 <npdoty> efelten, Peter is asking for friendly amendments by Friday, to prepare for a call for objections
17:08:00 <Yianni> ...this was discussed last week, but Chris was out
17:08:07 <rvaneijk> I counted 12+, 11-
17:08:07 <Zakim> + +1.415.863.bbjj
17:08:07 <aleecia> thank you, Nick
17:08:11 <efelten> ok, thanks
17:08:16 <Zakim> - +49.625.796.39.bbhh
17:08:28 <Chapell> I believe the decision is that we'll have a round of objections similar to what we did last week and the chairs will ultimately decide whether this moves forward
17:08:41 <Yianni> ...the name of the other proposal as the DAA proposal, so we are not going to say that any more, maybe the advertising industry proposal or something like that
17:08:44 <Zakim> +??P21
17:08:53 <rachel_n_thomas> Peter, it was an industry consensus proposal, so that would be a good term to use.
17:08:58 <Yianni> ...Chris do you want us to look at your proposal, or should we move on
17:09:01 <jmayer> Chapell, didn't Peter say earlier in the call that he is comfortable with the audience measurement text?
17:09:07 <Chapell> However, the process is not super clear - Peter may clarify down the road
17:09:11 <Yianni> Chris: sorry you caught me by surprise, I am not ready to comment
17:09:17 <npdoty> Zakim, bbgg is LeeTien
17:09:17 <Zakim> +LeeTien; got it
17:09:37 <Yianni> Peter: we are not going to do anything new on that, I should have emailed you before
17:09:48 <Yianni> ...John Simpson has a text on graduated response
17:09:58 <Chapell> Jmayer, if so, then that may lean towards a favorable outcome for this as a permitted use
17:10:04 <Yianni> ...2nd paragraph on graduated response, would it make sense for non-normative text
17:10:18 <fielding> www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Security
17:10:20 <Yianni> John Simpson: I grabbed this text from something Roy had earlier drafted
17:10:34 <Yianni> ...captured the notion of graduated response, as I though was important
17:10:52 <jchester2> John S is breaking up somewhat.
17:10:54 <jmayer> Chapell, yes, exactly. That seems problematic for the legitimacy of the chair decision making procedure—the chair leading this issue has telegraphed his views.
17:10:58 <Yianni> ...In the first paragraph, did not catch up with Peter's email, I do think second paragraph could go as non-normative language
17:11:01 <fielding> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Security#WD-style_text_.2B_Graduated_Response
17:11:25 <Yianni> Peter: relatively small differences in text from John and Roy, are you in a position, either John or Roy.
17:11:34 <npdoty> Zakim, please open the queue
17:11:34 <Zakim> ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is open
17:11:44 <Yianni> ...John do you have comments on differences between editors draft and the first paragraph
17:12:03 <Chapell> jmayer, as I've raised on the mailing list, it seems odd to me that the recent decision was referred to as a working group decision when it was clearly the decision of the chairs
17:12:03 <Yianni> John Simpson: I believe the editors draft did not use deceptive
17:12:05 <npdoty> June draft had "proportionate" and didn't include "deceptive", were the other differences
17:12:14 <Yianni> ...I am comfortable with that, it does not need to be deceptive
17:12:27 <Yianni> ...key is that I want to introduce the concept of graduated response
17:12:27 <peterswire> comment on john's language to add non-normative text
17:12:39 <jmayer> q+
17:12:40 <peterswire> q?
17:12:42 <Yianni> Peter: looking for comments on adding non-normative text on graduated response
17:12:48 <rvaneijk> rvaneijk has joined #DNT
17:13:08 <Yianni> jmayer: I'm trying to understand why this would be non-normative as opposed to normative.  Why would we not say, when feasible you should use a graduated response
17:13:26 <Yianni> Peter: my own reading, a listing of examples is the sort of things that go into non-normative text
17:13:34 <aleecia> q+
17:13:38 <npdoty> I think the "Data Minimization" section would already cover the minimization requirement
17:13:44 <Yianni> ...we are already in may world, the bindingness of normative text would not appear to apply, there is not a must
17:13:55 <npdoty> ... "graduated response" would be an explanation for this permitted use
17:14:01 <Yianni> jmayer: you can provide conditions on a may, when it is feasible you do graduated response
17:14:03 <fielding> q+
17:14:06 <JJ> JJ has joined #dnt
17:14:07 <npdoty> ack jmayer
17:14:08 <npdoty> ack aleecia
17:14:21 <johnsimpson> q+
17:14:35 <Yianni> Aleecia: you can put qualifiers on a may, could have one line, if you do this, you have to follow notion of graduated response
17:14:37 <npdoty> q+
17:14:42 <jmayer> For example, we might move the first sentence of the second paragraph up to the first paragraph.
17:14:43 <Yianni> ...the new text does look like an example
17:14:56 <Yianni> ...from drafting, one line of normative, and the rest would go to non-normative
17:15:17 <Yianni> John Simpson: looking at text again, I think the idea of graduated response needs to be conveyed in a normative way
17:15:46 <npdoty> ack fielding
17:15:52 <Yianni> ...what Aleecia just said, when feasible, that should become normative, and the example would be non-normative.  Comfortable with that.
17:16:08 <Yianni> Roy: it is definitely non-normative right now, trying to draft text of a reasonable middle ground
17:16:24 <tiltrl> tiltrl has joined #dnt
17:16:30 <peterswire> close q
17:16:34 <Yianni> ...I do not believe it is possible to define graduated response, as an opt out of security
17:16:36 <jmayer> q+
17:16:36 <npdoty> Zakim, please close the queue
17:16:37 <Zakim> ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed
17:16:46 <Yianni> ...I think it is already covered by what is neccesary for security
17:16:57 <Yianni> doty: maybe there is not much of a disagreement
17:17:09 <Chris_IAB> agree that if graduated response is in, it stay as non-normative (but I'm not a fan of the graduated response text)
17:17:20 <Yianni> ...general principle limited to data for reasonably neccesary
17:17:32 <Yianni> ...sometimes for security, a graduated response may be all that is neccesary
17:17:49 <Yianni> ...I think it is fine to be non-normative, still have normative language of reaosnably neccesary
17:18:00 <Yianni> Roy: this was in Ian's description
17:18:08 <aleecia> as i recall Ian's text was pretty solid, but it's been a while
17:18:10 <Yianni> ...might want to perfect definition of graduated response
17:18:20 <npdoty> action: doty to add definition from Ian about graduated response to appropriate change proposal
17:18:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-426 - Add definition from Ian about graduated response to appropriate change proposal [on Nick Doty - due 2013-07-24].
17:18:26 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
17:18:29 <Yianni> Peter: this is an issue that has come up in various ways in Sunnyvale and previous times
17:18:33 <WileyS> I thought I had already demonstrated in Sunnyvale how a graduated response doesn't work well in the Security world (especially with respect to unique IDs)
17:18:35 <Zakim> -hefferjr
17:18:44 <Yianni> ...Lets go ahead and do a vote
17:19:07 <fielding> WileyS, correct, which is why it says "When feasible, "
17:19:10 <npdoty> WileyS, there may be some security situations where graduated response isn't effective and some where it is
17:19:25 <Zakim> +hefferjr
17:19:25 <jmayer> WileyS, I'm not sure what you mean.  We invited a security expert, and he told us that unique IDs aren't needed.
17:19:27 <WileyS> Ed, okay
17:19:34 <Yianni> ...way I understood this, is the second paragraph was non-normative text, and Roy and Simpson had similar directions
17:19:48 <WileyS> Jonathan - I demonstrated to both the "expert" and the group that it wasn't.
17:19:54 <Yianni> ...first thing we have before us: whether to add non-normative text along the lines of john simpson language
17:20:03 <WileyS> Jonathan - we have many security "experts" at Yahoo
17:20:11 <fielding> the text where it says "(see <defn>)" is intended to be a cross-ref to the definition of graduated response supplied by Ian Fette
17:20:15 <Yianni> ...second thing, from jonathan and aleecia, want a sentence that adds graduated response to normative text
17:20:21 <aleecia> to be clear: i prefer a normative addition, but if needed can live with non-normative
17:20:25 <jmayer> q+
17:20:31 <Marc_> Are we ending at 1:30 pm?
17:20:33 <Yianni> ...I think it is a yes, no to jonathan and aleecia, would you want to add normative text?
17:20:45 <npdoty> jmayer, aleecia -- would you be comfortable, as I suggested, with the normative minimization requirement (and not add a separate normative sentence on graduated response)?
17:20:49 <Yianni> Aleecia: imagining one sentence
17:21:00 <npdoty> ... could live with non-normative
17:21:09 <Chapell> Is there going to be a discussion on the chair's decision that came down on Tuesday? If not on today's call, when?
17:21:26 <WileyS> +1 to Alan - that's critical for conversation ASAP
17:21:31 <Yianni> jamyer: I prefer Lee's text to John's text, what are we going to do with Chris' text which is another direction
17:21:46 <aleecia> +1 to Alan and Shane
17:21:52 <Zakim> -LeeTien
17:21:55 <Yianni> Peter: graduated response is separate from other security issues
17:22:07 <Marc_> +1 to Aleecia
17:22:10 <Zakim> +LeeTien
17:22:17 <peterswire> lack of consensus on adding normative text
17:22:22 <aleecia> though with 8 minutes left, presumably we need more than today
17:22:42 <Yianni> ...we are going to ask for proposals for normative text from Aleecia or jonathan or others
17:22:56 <Chapell> Aleecia, I agree - 8 min is not enough. I'm asking for that to be added to next week's agenda.
17:23:03 <Yianni> ...we are going to ask for it to be in spirit of change proposals before it.  Short addition of normative text
17:23:18 <jmayer> My proposal: move the first sentence of the second paragraph up to the first paragraph. Done.
17:23:19 <WileyS> Agreed - we can't add 30 mins to today with a bit more heads-up.  Many of us have day jobs :-)
17:23:29 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
17:23:37 <Yianni> ...let me ask, reaction from broader group of non-normative text.  WIll probably have a call for objections for adding a graduated response
17:23:37 <rvaneijk> Alan, Shane, we need to talk about NoGo as well today
17:23:46 <Yianni> ...what are the views of having non-normative text
17:23:52 <WileyS> Rob - not enough time - should have started with that conversation
17:24:02 <peterswire> +1 add non normative text, subject to perfecting language
17:24:03 <Yianni> ...+1 add non-normative text subject to perfecting language, such as Roys
17:24:04 <johnsimpson> Clarifying question?
17:24:07 <jmayer> A clarifying question: what do participants think the difference between normative and non-normative text would be?
17:24:11 <Chapell> rvaneijk, sorry, what do you mean re: NoGo
17:24:15 <Yianni> ...-1 would be do not add non-normative text about graduated response
17:24:27 <peterswire> -1 do not add non-normative text about graduated response
17:24:30 <aleecia> actually, i can see holding a normal call right now as people calm down and absorb the decision. but agree we need to talk it through, soon.
17:24:39 <Yianni> ...we have john's language on change proposal, question is to add or not non-normative text
17:24:41 <npdoty> +1
17:24:42 <hefferjr> +1
17:24:42 <aleecia> +1
17:24:44 <moneill2> +1
17:24:47 <rvaneijk> Chapell, controlled shutdown
17:24:48 <ninjamarnau> +1 (with option for normative text)
17:25:05 <Chapell> rvaneijk, ahhh, thanks
17:25:08 <Yianni> John simpson: are we considering the whole text as non-normative?
17:25:10 <jmayer> rvaneijk, could you explain what you mean?
17:25:14 <jmayer> +1
17:25:16 <jchester2> +1 (need to make it normative)
17:25:20 <rvaneijk> +1
17:25:26 <Yianni> Peter: +1 add text subject to polishing, -1 would be to not have in non-normative text
17:25:27 <Zakim> -kj
17:25:31 <dan_auerbach> +1
17:25:43 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
17:25:54 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.415.863.bbjj (31%)
17:25:57 <rvaneijk> jmayer, we need to talk about how the group is to proceed, next week is self imposed deadline
17:26:02 <Yianni> ...taking language in John's change proposal, +1 you are in favor od adding text to non-normative text.
17:26:04 <johnsimpson> +1
17:26:11 <Yianni> Peter: have not seen any -1 yet
17:26:14 <jmayer> rvaneijk, what would you need to see for the group to proceed?
17:26:15 <fielding> +1, but the first paragraph is a normative change proposal
17:26:16 <Yianni> ...we are almost at time
17:26:29 <Yianni> ...I do not see obejctions to non-normative text, that will be part of the base text
17:26:30 <rvaneijk> objection procedure
17:26:33 <Yianni> ...will take up more on the list
17:26:45 <npdoty> Topic: Wrap-up
17:26:46 <Yianni> ...I am going to briefly say where we are
17:27:01 <Yianni> ...first thing, W3C staff, Matthias, and I need to talk more
17:27:03 <aleecia> to make sure we get that scribed: DECISION is to add John's non-normative text to the draft. presumably an action item against an editor is appropriate?
17:27:11 <Yianni> ...in ideal world, we would have done, but we have been busy
17:27:37 <Yianni> ...we will set down order of additional change proposals, path for additional change proposals, there is not  a way to get to last call by the end of July
17:27:52 <Yianni> ...next Wednesday, we will have a discussion about where we are and next steps
17:28:01 <Yianni> ...we will provide more details on that
17:28:01 <npdoty> action: brookman to add non-normative text on graduated response
17:28:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-427 - Add non-normative text on graduated response [on Justin Brookman - due 2013-07-24].
17:28:05 <aleecia> fair enough.
17:28:09 <Yianni> ...there will be follow emails to list on all of those things
17:28:19 <Yianni> ...emails to follow up on security point
17:28:19 <aleecia> (thanks Nick)
17:28:20 <Zakim> -JeffWilson
17:28:22 <Zakim> -efelten
17:28:23 <Yianni> ...that will be the end of the call today
17:28:23 <Zakim> -Dan_Auerbach
17:28:23 <Zakim> -[FTC]
17:28:24 <Zakim> -peterswire
17:28:24 <Zakim> -eberkower
17:28:24 <Zakim> - +1.202.587.aayy
17:28:25 <Zakim> - +1.202.257.bbii
17:28:25 <Zakim> -kulick
17:28:25 <Zakim> -robsherman
17:28:25 <Zakim> - +1.650.365.aavv
17:28:26 <Lmastria_DAA> Lmastria_DAA has left #dnt
17:28:26 <Zakim> -BrianH
17:28:26 <Zakim> -Nielsen
17:28:26 <Zakim> -Jonathan_Mayer
17:28:26 <Zakim> -vincent
17:28:26 <Zakim> -WileyS
17:28:27 <Chapell> Peter, that sounds good re: next steps. I encourage you to have an open discussion on the chair's decision last week
17:28:27 <Zakim> -RichardWeaver
17:28:27 <Zakim> - +1.650.787.bbee
17:28:27 <Zakim> -ninjamarnau
17:28:27 <Zakim> - +1.650.595.aann
17:28:27 <Zakim> -SusanIsrael
17:28:28 <Zakim> -[Apple]
17:28:28 <Zakim> -vinay
17:28:28 <Zakim> -Brooks
17:28:28 <Zakim> -paulohm
17:28:29 <Zakim> -Chris_IAB
17:28:29 <Zakim> -Keith_Scarborough
17:28:29 <Zakim> -Joanne
17:28:29 <Zakim> -npdoty
17:28:31 <Zakim> -rachel_n_thomas
17:28:31 <Zakim> -Aleecia
17:28:31 <Zakim> -Chris_Pedigo
17:28:31 <Zakim> -jchester2
17:28:32 <Zakim> -dwainberg
17:28:32 <Zakim> -moneill2
17:28:32 <Zakim> -hefferjr
17:28:33 <Zakim> -??P91
17:28:33 <Zakim> -adrianba
17:28:34 <Zakim> -jackhobaugh
17:28:34 <Zakim> -LeeTien
17:28:35 <npdoty> Zakim, list attendees
17:28:35 <kulick> kulick has left #dnt
17:28:35 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
17:28:35 <Zakim> -AdamPhillips
17:28:35 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been npdoty, +31.65.141.aaaa, rvaneijk, +1.212.768.aabb, rachel_n_thomas, +1.646.654.aacc, eberkower, +1.202.587.aadd, Fielding,
17:28:35 <Zakim> ... +1.678.492.aaee, Yianni, +1.202.344.aaff, +31.62.125.aagg, SusanIsrael, RichardWeaver, +1.202.347.aahh, +1.202.345.aaii, jackhobaugh, +1.916.212.aajj, Chris_IAB,
17:28:37 <Zakim> ... +1.202.331.aakk, BrianH, Brooks, +1.303.492.aall, paulohm, Joanne, Peder_Magee, BerinSzoka, +1.646.827.aamm, Bryan_Sullivan, JeffWilson, +1.650.595.aann, +1.202.331.aaoo,
17:28:37 <Zakim> ... +1.203.563.aapp, +44.186.558.aaqq, Mike_Zaneis?, WileyS, +1.408.836.aarr, moneill2, [Microsoft], Chris_Pedigo, jchester2, hefferjr, +1.646.666.aass, JoeHallCDT, kj,
17:28:41 <Zakim> ... +1.301.365.aatt, [IPcaller], +1.609.258.aauu, efelten, +1.650.365.aavv, dwainberg, adrianba, vinay, Nielsen, Aleecia, Chapell, +43.198.8aaww, +1.650.787.aaxx, kulick, [FTC],
17:28:41 <Zakim> ... Keith_Scarborough, hober, hwest, +1.202.587.aayy, Dan_Auerbach, +49.431.98.aazz, ninjamarnau, +44.142.864.bbaa, +1.215.480.bbbb, AdamPhillips, Jonathan_Mayer, Amy_Colando,
17:28:43 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has left #dnt
17:28:46 <Zakim> ... +33.6.50.34.bbcc, vincent, +1.415.627.bbdd, johnsimpson, +1.650.787.bbee, peterswire, laurengelman, +1.202.257.bbff, robsherman, +1.510.501.bbgg, +49.625.796.39.bbhh,
17:28:46 <Zakim> ... +1.202.257.bbii, +1.415.863.bbjj, LeeTien
17:28:46 <Zakim> -johnsimpson
17:28:46 <Zakim> -BerinSzoka
17:28:46 <Zakim> -Yianni
17:28:46 <Zakim> -??P21
17:28:46 <Zakim> -Mike_Zaneis?
17:28:46 <Zakim> -Chapell
17:28:46 <Zakim> - +1.415.863.bbjj
17:28:53 <npdoty> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:28:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/07/17-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
17:28:55 <Zakim> -Fielding
17:29:27 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
17:36:07 <npdoty> action-427: Nick can help with editing if Justin is unavailable
17:36:07 <trackbot> Notes added to ACTION-427 Add non-normative text on graduated response.
17:40:30 <cOlsen> cOlsen has joined #dnt
18:05:00 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, ??P53, in T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
18:05:01 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
18:05:01 <Zakim> Attendees were npdoty, +31.65.141.aaaa, rvaneijk, +1.212.768.aabb, rachel_n_thomas, +1.646.654.aacc, eberkower, +1.202.587.aadd, Fielding, +1.678.492.aaee, Yianni, +1.202.344.aaff,
18:05:02 <Zakim> ... +31.62.125.aagg, SusanIsrael, RichardWeaver, +1.202.347.aahh, +1.202.345.aaii, jackhobaugh, +1.916.212.aajj, Chris_IAB, +1.202.331.aakk, BrianH, Brooks, +1.303.492.aall,
18:05:02 <Zakim> ... paulohm, Joanne, Peder_Magee, BerinSzoka, +1.646.827.aamm, Bryan_Sullivan, JeffWilson, +1.650.595.aann, +1.202.331.aaoo, +1.203.563.aapp, +44.186.558.aaqq, Mike_Zaneis?,
18:05:02 <Zakim> ... WileyS, +1.408.836.aarr, moneill2, [Microsoft], Chris_Pedigo, jchester2, hefferjr, +1.646.666.aass, JoeHallCDT, kj, +1.301.365.aatt, [IPcaller], +1.609.258.aauu, efelten,
18:05:07 <Zakim> ... +1.650.365.aavv, dwainberg, adrianba, vinay, Nielsen, Aleecia, Chapell, +43.198.8aaww, +1.650.787.aaxx, kulick, [FTC], Keith_Scarborough, hober, hwest, +1.202.587.aayy,
18:05:07 <Zakim> ... Dan_Auerbach, +49.431.98.aazz, ninjamarnau, +44.142.864.bbaa, +1.215.480.bbbb, AdamPhillips, Jonathan_Mayer, Amy_Colando, +33.6.50.34.bbcc, vincent, +1.415.627.bbdd,
18:05:11 <Zakim> ... johnsimpson, +1.650.787.bbee, peterswire, laurengelman, +1.202.257.bbff, robsherman, +1.510.501.bbgg, +49.625.796.39.bbhh, +1.202.257.bbii, +1.415.863.bbjj, LeeTien
18:45:34 <tjs> tjs has joined #dnt
19:37:14 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dnt