15:50:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:50:37 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/10/02-dnt-irc
15:50:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:50:39 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dnt
15:50:41 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
15:50:41 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:50:42 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:50:42 <trackbot> Date: 02 October 2013
15:50:56 <wseltzer> zakim, this will be TRACK
15:50:56 <Zakim> ok, wseltzer; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
15:51:04 <rvaneijk> rvaneijk has joined #dnt
15:51:34 <wseltzer> wseltzer has changed the topic to: Agenda 2 October: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Oct/0014.html
15:52:12 <wseltzer> agenda?
15:53:11 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:53:18 <Zakim> + +1.202.587.aaaa
15:54:32 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
15:54:45 <Zakim> +??P8
15:55:00 <rvaneijk> zakim, ??p8 is me
15:55:00 <Zakim> +rvaneijk; got it
15:55:01 <Zakim> +Wendy
15:55:04 <rvaneijk> zakim, mute me
15:55:05 <Zakim> rvaneijk should now be muted
15:55:32 <FPFJoeN> 202 is FPFJoeN
15:55:41 <wseltzer> zakim, aaaa is FPFJoeN
15:55:41 <Zakim> +FPFJoeN; got it
15:55:49 <FPFJoeN> Zakim please mute me
15:56:14 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
15:56:38 <npdoty> Zakim, code?
15:56:38 <Zakim> the conference code is 87225 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), npdoty
15:56:43 <FPFJoeN> zakim, mute me
15:56:43 <Zakim> FPFJoeN should now be muted
15:56:48 <Zakim> +Fielding
15:56:54 <Zakim> +cargill
15:57:31 <Zakim> + +1.650.595.aabb
15:57:32 <JackHobaugh> JackHobaugh has joined #dnt
15:58:04 <jchester2> jchester2 has joined #dnt
15:58:07 <Ari> Ari has joined #dnt
15:58:09 <Zakim> +npdoty
15:58:34 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
15:58:40 <Zakim> + +1.215.480.aacc
15:58:44 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Wendy (5%), cargill (5%)
15:58:54 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:58:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see FPFJoeN (muted), rvaneijk (muted), Wendy, Fielding, cargill, +1.650.595.aabb, npdoty, +1.215.480.aacc
15:58:56 <Zakim> +??P41
15:59:10 <npdoty> Zakim, ??p41 is schunter
15:59:10 <Zakim> +schunter; got it
15:59:24 <npdoty> Zakim, aacc is WaltMichel
15:59:24 <Zakim> +WaltMichel; got it
15:59:44 <moneill2> moneill2 has joined #dnt
15:59:57 <ninjamarnau> ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
16:00:08 <Zakim> + +1.734.276.aadd
16:00:17 <Zakim> +jchester2
16:00:21 <jchester2> zakim, mute me
16:00:21 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
16:00:27 <kj> kj has joined #dnt
16:00:32 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:00:36 <Zakim> + +43.198.8aaee
16:00:40 <Walter> Zakim, IPcaller is me
16:00:40 <Zakim> +Walter; got it
16:00:43 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
16:00:45 <jchester2> Hello to my EU friends.
16:00:49 <Zakim> + +1.202.347.aaff
16:00:49 <ninjamarnau> Zakim, aaee is ninjamarnau
16:00:50 <Zakim> +ninjamarnau; got it
16:00:55 <Zakim> + +1.408.836.aagg
16:01:00 <schunter> Do we have volunteers for scribing?
16:01:02 <JackHobaugh> Zakim,aaff is me
16:01:02 <Zakim> +JackHobaugh; got it
16:01:05 <wseltzer> zakim, who is here?
16:01:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see FPFJoeN (muted), rvaneijk (muted), Wendy, Fielding, cargill, +1.650.595.aabb, npdoty, WaltMichel, schunter, +1.734.276.aadd, jchester2 (muted), Walter,
16:01:09 <Zakim> ... ninjamarnau, JackHobaugh, +1.408.836.aagg
16:01:09 <Zakim> On IRC I see dwainberg, kj, ninjamarnau, moneill2, Ari, jchester2, JackHobaugh, npdoty, fielding, rvaneijk, Zakim, RRSAgent, schunter, FPFJoeN, jeff__, hober, rigo, wseltzer,
16:01:09 <Zakim> ... Walter, trackbot
16:01:09 <Zakim> - +1.734.276.aadd
16:01:13 <brysn> brysn has joined #dnt
16:01:18 <moneill2> jchester2, hi jeff
16:01:19 <Zakim> +Brooks
16:01:22 <Zakim> +hefferjr
16:01:23 <Zakim> + +1.646.827.aahh
16:01:26 <kulick> kulick has joined #dnt
16:01:26 <jchester2> Welcome to our new CDT colleague.
16:01:34 <dwainberg> zakim, aahh is dwainberg
16:01:34 <Zakim> +dwainberg; got it
16:01:36 <justin> justin has joined #dnt
16:01:39 <npdoty> Zakim, drop aabb
16:01:39 <Zakim> +1.650.595.aabb is being disconnected
16:01:40 <Zakim> - +1.650.595.aabb
16:01:50 <Zakim> + +1.734.276.aaii
16:01:57 <Ari> sorry
16:01:58 <Zakim> +JeffWilson
16:01:59 <eberkower> eberkower has joined #dnt
16:02:01 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
16:02:04 <Ari> 650.595 is ari
16:02:10 <Zakim> +[CDT]
16:02:16 <Zakim> -[CDT]
16:02:17 <Zakim> +Bryan_Sullivan
16:02:23 <Zakim> + +44.186.558.aajj
16:02:24 <wseltzer> zakim, aabb is Ari
16:02:24 <Zakim> sorry, wseltzer, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
16:02:27 <Zakim> + +1.212.231.aakk
16:02:28 <matt> matt has joined #dnt
16:02:28 <npdoty> Zakim, aaii is [CDT]
16:02:29 <Zakim> +[CDT]; got it
16:02:37 <Zakim> + +31.20.589.aall
16:02:41 <wseltzer> zakim, who is here?
16:02:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see FPFJoeN (muted), rvaneijk (muted), Wendy, Fielding, cargill, npdoty, WaltMichel, schunter, jchester2 (muted), Walter, ninjamarnau, JackHobaugh, +1.408.836.aagg,
16:02:41 <moneill2> zakim, aajj is me
16:02:44 <Zakim> ... Brooks, dwainberg, hefferjr, [CDT], JeffWilson, Bryan_Sullivan, +44.186.558.aajj, +1.212.231.aakk, +31.20.589.aall
16:02:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see matt, Brooks, eberkower, justin, kulick, brysn, dwainberg, kj, ninjamarnau, moneill2, Ari, jchester2, JackHobaugh, npdoty, fielding, rvaneijk, Zakim, RRSAgent,
16:02:44 <Zakim> ... schunter, FPFJoeN, jeff__, hober, rigo, wseltzer, Walter, trackbot
16:02:45 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
16:02:45 <npdoty> Zakim, aagg is kulick
16:02:47 <Zakim> +kulick; got it
16:02:55 <Zakim> + +1.646.654.aamm
16:03:06 <Zakim> +[CDT.a]
16:03:13 <Zakim> + +1.650.595.aann
16:03:15 <eberkower> Zakim, aamm is eberkower
16:03:15 <Zakim> +eberkower; got it
16:03:16 <justin> zakim, cdt.a has me
16:03:16 <Zakim> +justin; got it
16:03:22 <AdamP> AdamP has joined #dnt
16:03:32 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
16:03:49 <Zakim> + +1.202.344.aaoo
16:03:54 <Zakim> + +1.917.934.aapp
16:03:54 <npdoty> Zakim, aakk is MattHayes
16:03:55 <Zakim> +MattHayes; got it
16:03:57 <susanisrael> susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:04:04 <wseltzer> zakim, who is on the call?
16:04:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see FPFJoeN (muted), rvaneijk (muted), Wendy, Fielding, cargill, npdoty, WaltMichel, schunter, jchester2 (muted), Walter, ninjamarnau, JackHobaugh, kulick, Brooks,
16:04:08 <Zakim> ... dwainberg, hefferjr, [CDT], JeffWilson, Bryan_Sullivan, moneill2, MattHayes, +31.20.589.aall, eberkower, [CDT.a], +1.650.595.aann, +1.202.344.aaoo, +1.917.934.aapp
16:04:08 <Zakim> [CDT.a] has justin
16:04:08 <Zakim> +ninjamarnau.a
16:04:18 <wseltzer> zakim, aann is Ari
16:04:19 <Zakim> +Ari; got it
16:04:22 <eberkower> Zakim, please mute me
16:04:23 <Zakim> + +44.142.864.aaqq
16:04:23 <Zakim> eberkower should now be muted
16:04:34 <susanisrael> Zakim, 917.934.aapp is susanisrael
16:04:34 <Zakim> sorry, susanisrael, I do not recognize a party named '917.934.aapp'
16:04:42 <hwest> hwest has joined #dnt
16:04:47 <Zakim> +Chris_Pedigo
16:04:47 <Zakim> + +1.202.346.aarr
16:04:51 <npdoty> Zakim, aaoo is MikeZaneis
16:04:51 <Zakim> +MikeZaneis; got it
16:04:54 <wseltzer> zakim, aapp is susanisrael
16:04:54 <Zakim> +susanisrael; got it
16:04:57 <AdamP> AdamP is aaqq
16:05:04 <wseltzer> zakim, aaqq is AdamP
16:05:04 <Zakim> +AdamP; got it
16:05:06 <susanisrael> +1.917.934.aapp is susanisrael
16:05:08 <rachel_n_thomas> rachel_n_thomas has joined #dnt
16:05:10 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:05:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see FPFJoeN (muted), rvaneijk (muted), Wendy, Fielding, cargill, npdoty, WaltMichel, schunter, jchester2 (muted), Walter, ninjamarnau, JackHobaugh, kulick, Brooks,
16:05:13 <Zakim> ... dwainberg, hefferjr, [CDT], JeffWilson, Bryan_Sullivan, moneill2, MattHayes, +31.20.589.aall, eberkower (muted), [CDT.a], Ari, MikeZaneis, susanisrael, ninjamarnau.a, AdamP,
16:05:13 <Zakim> ... Chris_Pedigo, +1.202.346.aarr
16:05:13 <Zakim> [CDT.a] has justin
16:05:25 <Mike_Zaneis> Mike_Zaneis has joined #dnt
16:05:33 <Zakim> + +1.202.478.aass
16:05:46 <rachel_n_thomas> zakim, aass is rachel_n_thomas
16:05:46 <Zakim> +rachel_n_thomas; got it
16:05:48 <hwest> Zakim, aarr is hwest
16:05:48 <Zakim> +hwest; got it
16:06:03 <Walter> +31.20 is an Amsterdam number
16:06:05 <wseltzer> zakim, aall is probably Kathy_Joe
16:06:05 <Zakim> +Kathy_Joe?; got it
16:06:18 <npdoty> volunteers to scribe for first or second half?
16:06:27 <npdoty> Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:06:27 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose eberkower (muted)
16:06:44 <eberkower> no sorry
16:06:48 <npdoty> Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:06:48 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ninjamarnau.a
16:06:48 <eberkower> i am not on a
16:06:52 <eberkower> regular
16:06:56 <ninjamarnau> sure
16:06:58 <eberkower> computer
16:07:06 <npdoty> scribenick: ninjamarnau
16:07:12 <Vinay> Vinay has joined #dnt
16:07:13 <npdoty> Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:07:13 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose JackHobaugh
16:07:26 <npdoty> JackHobaugh, could you scribe the second half to help out ninjamarnau?
16:07:27 <schunter> q?
16:07:37 <ninjamarnau> schunter: No comments on agenda
16:07:38 <wseltzer> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Oct/0014.html Agenda
16:07:54 <npdoty> Zakim, mute me
16:07:54 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
16:08:04 <JackHobaugh> npdoty: I am not a good typist
16:08:12 <Zakim> -ninjamarnau
16:08:18 <hefferjr> hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:08:22 <npdoty> scribenick: npdoty
16:08:32 <npdoty> schunter: goal is to come up with a small number of good change proposals
16:08:35 <ninjamarnau> .... Overview on change proposals. To come up with a number of high-quality change proposals.
16:08:48 <npdoty> scribenick: ninjamarnau
16:08:54 <wseltzer> i/scribenick: npdoty/Topic: Our perspective on how to shape change proposals
16:09:11 <ninjamarnau> ... We would like to reduce and merge change proposals, so that we find consensus easier.
16:09:21 <Zakim> +Rigo
16:09:26 <rigo> zakim, mute me
16:09:26 <Zakim> Rigo should now be muted
16:10:07 <ninjamarnau> ... Reduce it to 2 or 3 really different and high quality proposals. You can also withdraw old proposals that are not valid anymore.
16:10:19 <Zakim> + +1.650.465.aatt
16:10:31 <ninjamarnau> ... I like to get rid of change proposals with very few supporters.
16:11:01 <ninjamarnau> ... That's my perspective. Over to Carl.
16:11:38 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
16:11:42 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:12:20 <Zakim> +BerinSzoka
16:12:29 <Zakim> +??P12
16:12:32 <Zakim> +johnsimpson
16:12:34 <rvaneijk> zakim, p12 is me
16:12:34 <Zakim> sorry, rvaneijk, I do not recognize a party named 'p12'
16:12:37 <schunter> q?
16:12:41 <rvaneijk> zakim, ??p12 is me
16:12:41 <Zakim> +rvaneijk; got it
16:12:45 <rvaneijk> zakim, mute me
16:12:45 <Zakim> rvaneijk should now be muted
16:12:49 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:12:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see FPFJoeN (muted), Wendy, Fielding, cargill, npdoty (muted), WaltMichel, schunter, jchester2 (muted), Walter, JackHobaugh, kulick, Brooks, dwainberg, hefferjr,
16:12:53 <ninjamarnau> Carl: My background is I come from technical standards. Encouragement to work together to find consensus proposals.
16:12:53 <Zakim> ... [CDT], JeffWilson, Bryan_Sullivan, moneill2, MattHayes, Kathy_Joe?, eberkower (muted), [CDT.a], Ari, MikeZaneis, susanisrael, ninjamarnau.a, AdamP, Chris_Pedigo, hwest,
16:12:53 <Zakim> ... rachel_n_thomas, Rigo (muted), +1.650.465.aatt, BerinSzoka, rvaneijk (muted), johnsimpson
16:12:53 <Zakim> [CDT.a] has justin
16:12:55 <schunter> q?
16:13:18 <carlcargill> carlcargill has joined #dnt
16:13:20 <johnsimpson> q?
16:13:21 <ninjamarnau> dwainberg: What's the difference between raised and open issues?
16:13:27 <npdoty> ack npdoty
16:13:37 <ninjamarnau> ... is there a need to reopen issues that have been raised?
16:14:00 <ninjamarnau> schunter: raised means it was not yet tackled by the group.
16:14:16 <ninjamarnau> ... before the final call we should address all raised issues.
16:14:28 <Chris_IAB> Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
16:14:49 <npdoty> Zakim, mute me
16:14:49 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
16:14:56 <ninjamarnau> ... I may formally open all issues that are currently raised but not open.
16:14:57 <JackHobaugh> Is there a deadline for "attaching"?
16:15:12 <npdoty> +1, we haven't been making that distinction, but we should Open issues once we're working through them
16:15:22 <fielding> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/5
16:15:25 <JackHobaugh> q+
16:15:29 <Zakim> +??P21
16:15:37 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
16:15:39 <Chris_IAB> just joined the call... sorry to be late
16:15:52 <Zakim> + +1.415.627.aauu
16:15:54 <ninjamarnau> ... We have 8 newly raisede issues. Want to go quickly through them.
16:15:57 <laurengelman> laurengelman has joined #dnt
16:16:03 <npdoty> Zakim, ??P21 is Chris_IAB
16:16:03 <Zakim> +Chris_IAB; got it
16:16:09 <justin> dwainberg, do you want to speak to these even though chapell isn't here?
16:16:14 <schunter> q?
16:16:18 <npdoty> Alan sent regrets for today, I believe.
16:16:31 <Vinay> Alan is speaking at IAPP right now
16:16:48 <justin> We'll get into this a bit more with the discussion of parties later on the call!
16:17:00 <ninjamarnau> ... 217 on network interaction
16:17:02 <npdoty> issue-217?
16:17:02 <trackbot> issue-217 -- Terminology for user action, interaction, and network interaction -- raised
16:17:02 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/217
16:17:11 <npdoty> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:17:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see FPFJoeN (muted), Wendy, Fielding, cargill, npdoty (muted), WaltMichel, schunter, jchester2 (muted), Walter, JackHobaugh, kulick, Brooks, dwainberg, hefferjr,
16:17:14 <Zakim> ... [CDT], JeffWilson, Bryan_Sullivan, moneill2, MattHayes, Kathy_Joe?, eberkower (muted), [CDT.a], Ari, MikeZaneis, susanisrael, ninjamarnau.a, AdamP, Chris_Pedigo, hwest,
16:17:14 <Zakim> ... rachel_n_thomas, Rigo (muted), +1.650.465.aatt, BerinSzoka, rvaneijk (muted), johnsimpson, Chris_IAB, +1.415.627.aauu
16:17:14 <Zakim> [CDT.a] has justin
16:17:19 <johnsimpson> q?
16:17:39 <npdoty> Zakim, drop aatt
16:17:39 <Zakim> +1.650.465.aatt is being disconnected
16:17:41 <Zakim> - +1.650.465.aatt
16:18:14 <Zakim> + +1.650.465.aavv
16:18:18 <ninjamarnau> fielding: network interaction is currently described as one or more requests.
16:18:32 <ninjamarnau> ... also user interaction is used, the difference is not clear.
16:18:47 <laurengelman> I am 627
16:18:55 <npdoty> Zakim, aauu is laurengelman
16:18:55 <Zakim> +laurengelman; got it
16:18:58 <Walter> I am with fielding here
16:19:03 <laurengelman> thx nick
16:19:23 <ninjamarnau> fielding: On issue 218 - data out of scope
16:19:57 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:20:03 <adrianba> zakim, [Microsoft] is me
16:20:03 <Zakim> +adrianba; got it
16:20:13 <ninjamarnau> ... We need to move it further to the beginning of the document and also a more clear definition
16:20:26 <ninjamarnau> schunter: Moving it up is editorial
16:20:46 <npdoty> schunter suggests that part of issue-218 may be editorial, just moving noting out of scope to be earlier in the document
16:20:50 <npdoty> issue-219?
16:20:50 <trackbot> issue-219 -- 3rd parties that are 1st parties must not use data across these contexts -- raised
16:20:50 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/219
16:21:24 <Zakim> -BerinSzoka
16:21:33 <ninjamarnau> Walter: Issue 219 on context
16:22:37 <ninjamarnau> ... the change of party context might lead to profiles of users including 1st party and 3rd party browsing history
16:23:04 <schunter> q?
16:23:07 <jchester2> We support such a proposal.
16:23:08 <schunter> ack Jack
16:23:18 <ninjamarnau> schunter: propose a close relationship with the issue on siloing of data
16:23:38 <johnsimpson> q+
16:23:44 <schunter> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/5
16:23:50 <Chris_IAB> npdoty, I am dialed from 650 but it's a private #
16:24:02 <ninjamarnau> Jack: Deadline on raising new issues?
16:24:07 <JC> JC has joined #DNT
16:24:15 <johnsimpson> q-
16:24:18 <ninjamarnau> schunter: today. I will sent a link to the complete list.
16:24:20 <npdoty> 219 is related to 170 (data append), yes? we've been talking about the use
16:24:21 <npdoty> ack npdoty
16:24:36 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:24:40 <hefferjr> q+
16:24:58 <susanisrael> I thought the deadline was extended to October 16, I am confused.
16:25:13 <rvaneijk> zakim, unmute me
16:25:13 <Zakim> rvaneijk should no longer be muted
16:25:50 <npdoty> I apologize if I used "open" when I meant "raised or opened"
16:25:53 <Walter> npdoty: yes, it is related to 170 but since it is also about 3rd party compliance, it is not the same
16:26:15 <fielding> npdoty, data append is usually 3rd party data used in a 1st party context, IIRC, whereas issue 219 is about 1st party data used in a 3rd party context
16:26:30 <Zakim> -Chris_Pedigo
16:27:16 <schunter> q?
16:27:20 <ninjamarnau> schunter: the list includes all issues raised by yesterday evening. Only the latest from today may not be included. Issues raised/attached to the old specs are now against the June draft.
16:27:23 <npdoty> Zakim, mute me
16:27:23 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
16:27:23 <schunter> q hef
16:27:26 <schunter> ack hef
16:27:34 <npdoty> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/5
16:27:42 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
16:28:06 <JackHobaugh> I also do not recall receiving the link to the attached list.
16:28:10 <npdoty> those are still issues we would address, but not our focus for this milestone
16:28:11 <Walter> fielding: correct, I think they should be considered as related nonetheless
16:28:24 <susanisrael> q+
16:28:28 <fielding> Walter, all issues are related ;-)
16:28:38 <npdoty> q?
16:28:42 <npdoty> ack susanisrael
16:28:43 <Walter> fielding: yes, it is all very Zen and all that as well :-)
16:28:46 <ninjamarnau> schunter: What is not attached to the current compliance spec is not on our radar.
16:28:54 <Zakim> +??P1
16:28:58 <rvaneijk> Zakim, ??P1 is me
16:28:58 <Zakim> +rvaneijk; got it
16:29:25 <ninjamarnau> susanisrael: There is a lot of confusion about the deadlines. I suggest to extend it to Friday.
16:29:46 <ninjamarnau> schunter: Going to discuss this with the other chairs
16:30:31 <fielding> on the contrary, that means we don't need to mention it at all because it has nothing to do with DNT preference.
16:30:33 <schunter> q?
16:30:46 <ninjamarnau> Walter: On Issue 220 on proportionality. As an overarching principle for all permitted uses.
16:31:03 <fielding> s/mention it/mention proportionality/
16:31:05 <npdoty> Walter, to fielding's point, if DNT isn't being sent, then our document doesn't need to describe how to respond to it, right?
16:31:31 <jchester2> zakim, unmute me
16:31:31 <Zakim> jchester2 should no longer be muted
16:31:34 <jchester2> +q
16:31:48 <ninjamarnau> dwainber: On issue 121 - Recommendation to rather rely on contexts than on the party definition.
16:31:55 <Walter> npdoty: I'd be in favour of a DNT-compliant party indicating it's DNT-compliance regardless of the occurence of a DNT-signal
16:31:57 <npdoty> I thought we were talking about data collected in particular contexts in the spec already, but if not, I think it would be great to see change proposals to clear that up
16:32:13 <Walter> eh, its, obviously
16:32:15 <susanisrael> I don't think this change is merely editorial
16:32:23 <ninjamarnau> ... I sent a simple table to the mailing list to explain this for a few examples.
16:32:25 <Zakim> - +1.650.465.aavv
16:32:27 <justin> This is *not* editorial . . .
16:32:33 <npdoty> or perhaps we've been relying on "first party to a network interaction"?
16:32:46 <susanisrael> +1 to justin
16:32:52 <fielding> It is not editorial, but I strongly agree with dwainberg
16:32:53 <ninjamarnau> schunter: is this more editorial?
16:32:53 <schunter> q?
16:33:01 <ninjamarnau> dwainberg: probably not.
16:33:34 <npdoty> for example, "In the context of a specific network interaction, the first party is ...."
16:33:46 <WaltMichel> WaltMichel has joined #DNT
16:33:55 <jchester2> zakim, mute me
16:33:55 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
16:34:00 <npdoty> ack jche
16:34:01 <Walter> I think dwainberg's line of thinking merits further discussion of it
16:34:02 <susanisrael> I do not think that is what the proposed change means, Jchester2
16:34:06 <npdoty> Zakim, mute jchester2
16:34:07 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
16:34:10 <ninjamarnau> jchester: dwainberg is proposing a major change. To step away from the 1st party 3rd party distinction.
16:34:19 <jchester2> Susan:  I think that's what David means.
16:34:21 <justin> I think Dwainberg may be proposing limits on how first parties can use data as third parties, not over how first parties can collect/use data as first parties.
16:34:37 <ninjamarnau> schunter: 2 questions - how to phrase it and second, what rules are attached.
16:34:45 <jchester2> Can David clarify what he means, please.
16:34:48 <johnsimpson> how do you determine the context?
16:34:52 <rvaneijk> Can anyone please post a link to the matrix dwainberg was talking about?
16:35:06 <Walter> rvaneijk: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/221
16:35:11 <rvaneijk> tnx
16:35:15 <Walter> it is a bit mutilated in my browser though
16:35:22 <Walter> probably need to use a fixed font
16:35:31 <ninjamarnau> dwainberg: use limitations are based on contexts not on parties.
16:35:37 <jchester2> That's not what I understand, Mattias.  I think Davis is proposing differemt first party rules.
16:36:01 <fielding> It makes it clearer because a given party changes their role (first or third or even SP) on any given request, but the data collected has to be constrained by the role in which it was collected (not by some nature of the party that collected it)
16:36:05 <johnsimpson> q+
16:36:24 <rvaneijk> talking about contexts raises interesting questions about audience measurement...
16:36:32 <schunter> q?
16:36:37 <schunter> ack john
16:36:43 <Zakim> +hober
16:37:04 <rvaneijk> the logical conclusion for audience measurement collection in a 3rd / 3rd context would be: do not collect
16:37:35 <ninjamarnau> john: I try to understand the proposal. Does it mean to throw data from 1st party and 3rd party together?
16:38:06 <rvaneijk> So, from a process point of view, it is important to discuss issue 121 before deciding on a permitted use for audience measurement
16:38:14 <ninjamarnau> dwainberg: Not proposing detailed rules. I would like to change the concept from parties to context.
16:38:24 <npdoty> justin has mentioned that we would discuss this further when talking about parties
16:38:28 <schunter> q?
16:38:33 <rvaneijk> s/ issue 121/ issue 221/
16:38:43 <ninjamarnau> schunter: I propose dwainberg writes down what he wants to do first.
16:39:10 <ninjamarnau> dwainberg: On ISSUE-222: Personalization or customizing of content should be allowed under certain collection/use limitations
16:39:18 <ninjamarnau> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/222
16:39:43 <JackHobaugh> Issues 223 through 225 have been submitted during this meeting.
16:39:46 <justin> rvaneijk, audience measurement is designed entirely at third parties who will only be collecting data in a third-party context.  Not sure ISSUE-221 is related, but perhaps I'm missing something.
16:40:10 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:40:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see FPFJoeN (muted), Wendy, Fielding, cargill, npdoty (muted), WaltMichel, schunter, jchester2 (muted), Walter, JackHobaugh, kulick, Brooks, dwainberg, hefferjr,
16:40:14 <Zakim> ... [CDT], JeffWilson, Bryan_Sullivan, moneill2, MattHayes, Kathy_Joe?, eberkower (muted), [CDT.a], Ari, MikeZaneis, susanisrael, ninjamarnau.a, AdamP, hwest, rachel_n_thomas, Rigo
16:40:14 <Zakim> ... (muted), johnsimpson, Chris_IAB, laurengelman, adrianba, [Microsoft], rvaneijk, hober
16:40:14 <Zakim> [CDT.a] has justin
16:40:27 <ninjamarnau> ... Personalization could be done in an innovative privacy-preserving ways, aggregating, bucketing
16:40:37 <rvaneijk> justin, if we emprase the new paradigm that david just proposed, then audience measurement needs to be looked at through that new lense.
16:40:46 <ninjamarnau> ... by using e.g. low entropy cookies
16:40:57 <schunter> q?
16:41:16 <schunter> q?
16:41:26 <justin> I'm not sure dwainberg's matrix changes how third parties can collect/use third party data.  Context is the standard one that we've been discussing for years.
16:41:56 <susanisrael> Justin, I think I agree with you but it merits further review and discussion.
16:42:08 <ninjamarnau> was this Rob or Walter?
16:42:19 <schunter> I agree. But D Wainbergs language is a clearer way to express the thing formerly called "1st party" "3rd party"
16:42:30 <rvaneijk> that was Walter.
16:42:35 <justin> susanisrael, Sure, I'll bring this up when we discuss audience measurement at the end.  If I forget, remind me!
16:42:50 <schunter> (we used this implicitly constraining party while in fact we actually describe constraints on the data collected in this context)
16:42:58 <ninjamarnau> ?: We should make sure that personalization only uses non personal data. (Relation to de-identification)
16:43:15 <schunter> (there exists no PURE 3rd party since most of them have a homepage, too).
16:43:16 <ninjamarnau> dwainberg: On ISSUE-223: Define criteria now for the test/implementation phase of the compliance spec
16:43:18 <susanisrael> sure.  I need to give it some thought separately, though, since it was just raised this morning.
16:43:30 <rvaneijk> s/?/Walter/
16:43:43 <npdoty> q+
16:44:06 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
16:44:06 <ninjamarnau> ... Give companies that want to implement DNT some guidance on what to expect.
16:44:08 <schunter> q?
16:44:12 <schunter> ack np
16:44:18 <qchris> qchris has joined #dnt
16:44:59 <adrianba> q+
16:45:10 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
16:45:10 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
16:45:34 <ninjamarnau> npdoty: This is very valuable. Maybe not necessarily before the Last Call deadline.
16:45:49 <Zakim> +??P1
16:45:56 <rvaneijk> Zakim, ??P1 is me
16:45:56 <Zakim> +rvaneijk; got it
16:46:13 <fielding> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/223
16:46:30 <npdoty> I agree, a very useful discussion, even before CR/Call for Implementations, I just don't think it's a Last Call issue for this document
16:46:38 <npdoty> q?
16:46:43 <ninjamarnau> schunter: we should test how exactly the text of the spec can be tested.
16:47:03 <Brooks> hard to measure maybe, but isn't a requirement?
16:47:09 <ninjamarnau> dwainberg: More than this, want to include user experience feedback
16:47:28 <ninjamarnau> schunter: Too hard to put it into criteria.
16:47:49 <ninjamarnau> dwainberg: Maybe we can put this on the agenda for the next calls.
16:48:03 <npdoty> q?
16:48:17 <npdoty> ack npdoty
16:48:18 <ninjamarnau> carl: difficult but needs to be done.
16:48:21 <ninjamarnau> q+
16:48:29 <npdoty> ack adrianba
16:48:33 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
16:48:33 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
16:50:11 <ninjamarnau> adrianba: We should talk about criteria.
16:50:18 <npdoty> scribenick: npdoty
16:50:20 <schunter> q?
16:50:23 <schunter> ack nin
16:50:41 <GSHans> GSHans has joined #DNT
16:50:59 <npdoty> ninjamarnau: if we want to have a discussion on how to comply, we should talk about the criteria, whether we want to measure compliance or impact on user experience or economic impact
16:51:01 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
16:51:01 <Zakim> npdoty was already muted, npdoty
16:51:06 <Zakim> -laurengelman
16:51:23 <adrianba_> adrianba_ has joined #dnt
16:51:32 <npdoty> ... David suggested that we put it on the agenda again, would ask he clarify what field [economic, ux?] he would want those testing criteria
16:52:01 <JackHobaugh> Is it a "technical spec" or is it a "compliance spec"?
16:52:04 <npdoty> carlcargill: because it's a technical spec, criteria are whether it can be implemented; economic impacts are going to be addressed by the market
16:52:10 <susanisrael> However, the compliance spec is not entirely a technical spec?
16:52:26 <justin> We should take this to the list and dedicate call time to it in the near future
16:52:39 <JackHobaugh> Isn't the TPE the "technical spec"?
16:52:52 <npdoty> carlcargill: implementation with unintended consequences, of whatever type
16:52:55 <ninjamarnau> npdoty, I could take over again
16:53:06 <Walter> JackHobaugh: I thought so as well
16:53:08 <npdoty> scribenick: ninjamarnau
16:53:19 <ninjamarnau> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/224
16:53:31 <Brooks> agree with Jack.  We need to be much more careful calling the compliance spec a technical spec
16:53:37 <ninjamarnau> brysn: on issue 224
16:53:43 <johnsimpson> Is the compliance document a "technical" spec?
16:54:08 <ninjamarnau> ... clarify the criteria to verify the user preference
16:54:30 <johnsimpson> q?
16:55:03 <ninjamarnau> ... it is related to issue 205
16:55:06 <schunter> q?
16:55:12 <npdoty> as you might imagine, people use terms like "technical" and "policy" in multiple ways
16:55:15 <justin> Suffice to say this is an open issue before the group that will be discussed in detail!
16:55:21 <Ari> Ari has joined #dnt
16:55:25 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:55:37 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: cargill (8%), schunter (73%), Brooks (4%)
16:55:41 <fielding> It is related to 205 because the current text in the document directly contradicts what Bryan wants in 224 -- this is not clarification
16:55:59 <npdoty> brysn: is this a distinct issue from 205? or just another change proposal on the same issue?
16:56:10 <JackHobaugh> q+
16:56:12 <jeff__> jeff__ has joined #dnt
16:56:15 <npdoty> s/brysn:/bryan,/
16:56:46 <ninjamarnau> schunter: Want to discuss 4 issues per week to close at least one per week.
16:57:37 <ninjamarnau> ... Issue 10 and Issue 5 already discussed. We need now to finalize the change proposals
16:57:43 <fielding> q+
16:57:53 <ninjamarnau> ... and next week to discuss these final change proposals
16:58:17 <schunter> q?
16:58:17 <justin> ack jack
16:58:55 <ninjamarnau> jack: Question on language of "draft proposal" and "final change proposal"
16:59:18 <ninjamarnau> ... are there different deadlines?
17:00:25 <ninjamarnau> schunter: By October 9th we freeze the change proposals on the listed issues. Then there is one week to "finalize" them by working on the "draft" proposals
17:00:49 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
17:00:56 <ninjamarnau> ... then one more week to discuss and find consensus. All in all it is a two week procedure.
17:01:14 <Zakim> +??P1
17:01:25 <justin> q?
17:01:25 <rvaneijk> zakim, ??P1 is me
17:01:26 <Zakim> +rvaneijk; got it
17:01:29 <susanisrael> Some time after the call, I think it would be helpful, if possible,  to circulate to the mailing list a revised list of deadlines, because nuances appear that seem to change them each time we discuss them.
17:01:44 <ninjamarnau> +1 to susanisrael
17:02:43 <justin> We've been discussing process for an hour.  We need to move on to substance.
17:02:49 <ninjamarnau> schunter: The chairs will decide on consensus by call for objection if there is more than one change proposal with substantiated support.
17:03:14 <npdoty> we have used hums, +1/-1, mailing list requests for any objections for the chairs to assess if there is a consensus
17:03:49 <fielding> Some of these change proposals should be impacted by issue-221, particularly issue-5 and issue-10; we should consider adding alternative phrasing that aligns with issue-221 for those proposals which might be more acceptable with that phrasing. I was already trying to do that with my proposals.
17:03:52 <ninjamarnau> jack: The criteria for consensus should be clarified.
17:04:23 <justin> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Party_Definitions
17:04:28 <npdoty> Topic: Issue 10
17:05:15 <ninjamarnau> justin: On issue 10 http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Party_Definitions and http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/10
17:05:40 <ninjamarnau> ... going through the proposals
17:06:58 <Zakim> -hwest
17:07:25 <npdoty> I think Amy and Chris were just asking that  "list of affiliates" be an example, rather than a hard requirement
17:07:37 <fielding> I would prefer that such additions be made in the sections on first and third party requirements.
17:08:09 <ninjamarnau> ... 2 things up for discussion - 1. requirement of easily discoverable affilates (privacy policy, well known resource etc.) 2. what defines "one party"
17:08:12 <justin> q?
17:08:23 <fielding> q-
17:08:41 <susanisrael> q+
17:08:43 <npdoty> does someone have a pointer to Alan C's language on this? I'm not quickly finding the email
17:09:09 <ninjamarnau> fielding: Common privacy regime would be a good way to meet user expectations
17:09:49 <npdoty> s/fielding/dwainberg/
17:10:02 <ninjamarnau> ...  common ownership is less relevant if there is not one common privacy regime.
17:10:13 <Zakim> +vinay
17:10:18 <npdoty> is the point about transparency to the user? or just that the parties use the same privacy policy?
17:10:39 <susanisrael> npdoty, i agree that that question is relevant
17:10:56 <rigo> q+
17:12:07 <npdoty> there would commonly be no third-parties in the context of an interaction if a publisher has a particular branding?
17:12:29 <justin> ack susan
17:12:54 <johnsimpson> q?
17:13:18 <ninjamarnau> dwainberg: even if different ownership companies agree contractually to the same privacy regime, it should be treated as one party.
17:13:45 <Walter> +1 on susanisrael's question
17:13:55 <ninjamarnau> susanisrael: doubt that this is (legally) possible
17:14:08 <ninjamarnau> ... and would possible contradict the user's expectations
17:14:32 <ninjamarnau> ... it is less stable than ownership
17:15:13 <ninjamarnau> dwainberg: common ownership is also not stable. And even with common ownership the user might not be aware of affiliates
17:15:25 <schunter> q?
17:15:33 <ninjamarnau> susanisrael: this is why we are talking about discoverability
17:15:38 <rigo> ack ri
17:15:46 <jchester2> Justin:  Have we agreed that easily discoverability is based on privacy policies?  because research shows no one uses or understands them.
17:16:10 <sidstamm> sidstamm has joined #dnt
17:16:11 <ninjamarnau> rigo: David should look into the "same party" status
17:16:21 <npdoty> npdoty has left #dnt
17:16:35 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
17:16:36 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
17:17:06 <Zakim> +??P1
17:17:12 <rvaneijk> Zakim, ??P1 is me
17:17:12 <Zakim> +rvaneijk; got it
17:17:28 <ninjamarnau> ... justin: we talked about multiple first parties last week
17:18:37 <ninjamarnau> ... I encourage roy to rephrase to address multiple first parties and not only a shared site by (2) first parties
17:18:43 <fielding> I think many people would agree that same-ownership without same-policy is borderline unworkable as a same-context in terms of user expectations. Hence, my proposed definition of tracking. However, I'd be surprised if the same people would allow same-policy (without same-ownership) to mean that the recipient can share with other same-policy parties.
17:19:06 <ninjamarnau> schunter: on issue 5 on definition of tracking
17:19:09 <justin> jchester2, I think that is what I heard last week.  But if you want to revisit requiring common branding, you can submit a change proposal!  I think the group had moved off it, but I want to consider all proposals (if you don't think WKR in privacy policy doesn't work).
17:19:11 <Walter> fielding: I agree on that, yes
17:19:12 <fielding> q+
17:19:16 <ninjamarnau> ... would like to drop some of them
17:19:21 <npdoty> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Tracking_Definition
17:19:26 <npdoty> Topic: Issue 5
17:19:26 <ninjamarnau> ... quick straw poll
17:20:16 <schunter> q?
17:20:17 <npdoty> ack fielding
17:20:37 <JackHobaugh> I am not prepared to vote on the 5 proposals for Issue-5 on such short notice.  I need time to analyze each.
17:20:44 <schunter> np
17:20:45 <ninjamarnau> fielding: it's correct that I proposed two different texts
17:21:11 <dwainberg> Chapell's change proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Oct/0018.html
17:21:30 <ninjamarnau> ... would like to hear the specific objections to the specific proposals
17:21:41 <dwainberg> Tracking is the act of following a particular user's browsing activity across multiple distinct contexts, via the collection or retention of data that can associate a given request to a particular user, user agent, or device, and the retention, use, or sharing of data derived from that activity outside the context in which it occurred. For the purposes of this definition, a context is a set of resources that EITHER: a) share the same owner, da
17:21:41 <dwainberg> ta controller and a common branding, such that a user would expect that data supplied to one of the resources is available to all of the others within the same context, OR b) enter into contract with other parties regarding the collection, retention, and use of data, share a common branding that is easily discoverable by a user, and describe their tracking practices clearly and conspicuously in a place that is easily discoverable by the user."
17:21:47 <ninjamarnau> ... not limiting peoples options to chose from
17:21:48 <schunter> q?
17:21:58 <Walter> schunter: I think it is better to keep this ISSUE
17:22:02 <Walter> eh, issue
17:23:06 <Chris_IAB> +1 to Roy's point
17:23:17 <ninjamarnau> fielding: tracking definition is crucial. The sites want to comply with the user's wishes. THe tracking definition defines the scop for the whole document. We should not limit our options here.
17:23:25 <WaltMichel_> WaltMichel_ has joined #DNT
17:23:26 <kulick> +1 to Roy's comments
17:24:10 <moneill2> moneill2 has joined #dnt
17:24:53 <npdoty> I think it's safe to say that grammatical corrections can be consolidated into a single proposal :)
17:25:19 <ninjamarnau> schunter: See your point. We should start by improving the change proposals and see if one gains strong support
17:25:20 <npdoty> ack npdoty
17:25:49 <Zakim> -Walter
17:26:10 <ninjamarnau> ... Would it be possible to drop proposal 6 from Roy?
17:26:27 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
17:26:27 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
17:26:55 <eberkower> Can we drop 6 AND 2?
17:27:03 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:27:07 <ninjamarnau> ... Will send a email on Proposal 5 and 6 from Roy.
17:27:10 <johnsimpson> q=
17:27:15 <johnsimpson> q+
17:27:17 <schunter> q?
17:27:23 <schunter> ack john
17:28:02 <fielding> Today, the language is (6) Tracking is understood by this recommendation as the collection and retention of data across multiple parties' domains or services in such a form that it can be associated with a specific user, user agent, or device.
17:28:05 <npdoty> q+
17:28:05 <ninjamarnau> john: What about the text in the current spec?
17:28:09 <jchester2> I agree with John.  We need further clairification here.
17:28:20 <fielding> johnsimpson, right, that was changed after the diff
17:28:27 <npdoty> ack npdoty
17:29:15 <Zakim> -Ari
17:29:25 <ninjamarnau> npdoty: Rob's proposal No. 4 includes the same concept as the April draft.
17:29:34 <hober> Zakim, who is making noise?
17:29:44 <Zakim> hober, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (36%), Kathy_Joe? (54%)
17:30:11 <fielding> it wasn't oversight -- it was requested by me, many times, on the list.
17:30:14 <npdoty> zakim, mute me
17:30:14 <Zakim> npdoty should now be muted
17:30:31 <justin> We are *trying* to define tracking.  That is the point of this exercise.  The short-term editors' draft is not relevant.  FOCUS ON SUBSTANCE.
17:30:38 <justin> FOCUS.
17:30:57 <ninjamarnau> schunter: If you would like to have a definition of tracking that is not currently in the wiki, please raise it
17:31:06 <ninjamarnau> ... otherwise it's off-radar
17:31:11 <npdoty> johnsimpson, apologies about the flux on editors' draft. I agree with justin that the change proposals on the wiki are most important for the group decision.
17:31:11 <wseltzer> Topic: Issues 24 and 25
17:31:39 <justin> I will discuss ISSUE-25 on the mailing list (as I would have on this call).
17:31:41 <npdoty> to be clear, both already have change proposals, but if there are more to add
17:32:23 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
17:32:30 <justin> Technically, we're moving 4 along . . .
17:32:38 <kj> If 221 is impacting Issue 25, it will be very difficult to have all change proposals submitted by the 9 Oct deadline
17:32:47 <Zakim> +??P0
17:32:48 <schunter> q?
17:32:48 <JackHobaugh> What does come hell or high water mean?
17:32:52 <Zakim> -dwainberg
17:32:53 <Zakim> -MattHayes
17:32:57 <rvaneijk> zakim, P??P0 is mer
17:32:57 <Zakim> sorry, rvaneijk, I do not recognize a party named 'P??P0'
17:32:58 <Zakim> -rachel_n_thomas
17:32:59 <rvaneijk> zakim, P??P0 is me
17:32:59 <Zakim> sorry, rvaneijk, I do not recognize a party named 'P??P0'
17:33:00 <wseltzer> JackHobaugh: 2 issues a week
17:33:01 <Zakim> -hober
17:33:01 <justin> ISSUE-221 shouldn't matter for audience measurement.
17:33:03 <Zakim> -jchester2
17:33:04 <Zakim> -Brooks
17:33:04 <Zakim> -vinay
17:33:04 <Zakim> -[CDT]
17:33:04 <Zakim> -JeffWilson
17:33:04 <Zakim> -Bryan_Sullivan
17:33:05 <Zakim> -[CDT.a]
17:33:05 <Zakim> -FPFJoeN
17:33:06 <Zakim> -susanisrael
17:33:07 <Zakim> -Rigo
17:33:09 <Zakim> -JackHobaugh
17:33:10 <Zakim> -Chris_IAB
17:33:11 <Zakim> -hefferjr
17:33:12 <Zakim> -adrianba
17:33:14 <Zakim> -Fielding
17:33:16 <Zakim> -ninjamarnau.a
17:33:18 <Zakim> -johnsimpson
17:33:21 <Zakim> -schunter
17:33:22 <Zakim> -moneill2
17:33:23 <Zakim> -cargill
17:33:25 <Zakim> -??P0
17:33:25 <Zakim> -Wendy
17:33:30 <Zakim> -Kathy_Joe?
17:33:31 <Zakim> -MikeZaneis
17:33:31 <Zakim> -eberkower
17:33:33 <Zakim> -kulick
17:33:34 <Zakim> -AdamP
17:33:38 <Zakim> -npdoty
17:33:48 <npdoty> Zakim, list attendees
17:33:48 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.202.587.aaaa, rvaneijk, Wendy, FPFJoeN, Fielding, cargill, +1.650.595.aabb, npdoty, +1.215.480.aacc, schunter, WaltMichel,
17:33:51 <Zakim> ... +1.734.276.aadd, jchester2, +43.198.8aaee, Walter, +1.202.347.aaff, ninjamarnau, +1.408.836.aagg, JackHobaugh, Brooks, hefferjr, +1.646.827.aahh, dwainberg, +1.734.276.aaii,
17:33:51 <Zakim> ... JeffWilson, [CDT], Bryan_Sullivan, +44.186.558.aajj, +1.212.231.aakk, +31.20.589.aall, moneill2, kulick, +1.646.654.aamm, +1.650.595.aann, eberkower, justin, +1.202.344.aaoo,
17:33:56 <Zakim> ... +1.917.934.aapp, MattHayes, Ari, +44.142.864.aaqq, Chris_Pedigo, +1.202.346.aarr, MikeZaneis, susanisrael, AdamP, +1.202.478.aass, rachel_n_thomas, hwest, Kathy_Joe?, Rigo,
17:33:56 <Zakim> ... +1.650.465.aatt, BerinSzoka, johnsimpson, +1.415.627.aauu, Chris_IAB, +1.650.465.aavv, laurengelman, adrianba, [Microsoft], hober, vinay
17:33:56 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:34:00 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.202.587.aaaa, rvaneijk, Wendy, FPFJoeN, Fielding, cargill, +1.650.595.aabb, npdoty, +1.215.480.aacc, schunter, WaltMichel, +1.734.276.aadd, jchester2,
17:34:00 <Zakim> ... +43.198.8aaee, Walter, +1.202.347.aaff, ninjamarnau, +1.408.836.aagg, JackHobaugh, Brooks, hefferjr, +1.646.827.aahh, dwainberg, +1.734.276.aaii, JeffWilson, [CDT],
17:34:03 <Zakim> ... Bryan_Sullivan, +44.186.558.aajj, +1.212.231.aakk, +31.20.589.aall, moneill2, kulick, +1.646.654.aamm, +1.650.595.aann, eberkower, justin, +1.202.344.aaoo, +1.917.934.aapp,
17:34:03 <Zakim> ... MattHayes, Ari, +44.142.864.aaqq, Chris_Pedigo, +1.202.346.aarr, MikeZaneis, susanisrael, AdamP, +1.202.478.aass, rachel_n_thomas, hwest, Kathy_Joe?, Rigo, +1.650.465.aatt,
17:34:04 <npdoty> chair: schunter, carlcargill, justin
17:34:08 <Zakim> ... BerinSzoka, johnsimpson, +1.415.627.aauu, Chris_IAB, +1.650.465.aavv, laurengelman, adrianba, [Microsoft], hober, vinay
17:34:11 <npdoty> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:34:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/10/02-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
17:35:28 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has left #dnt
17:43:15 <jeff> jeff has joined #dnt
19:38:34 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dnt
19:42:11 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
20:14:06 <npdoty> rrsagent, bye
20:14:06 <RRSAgent> I see no action items