15:36:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:36:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/05/14-dnt-irc
15:36:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:36:11 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be TRACK
15:36:11 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 24 minutes
15:36:11 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:36:12 <trackbot> Date: 14 May 2014
15:36:36 <ninja> regrets: dsinger, johnsimpson
15:47:57 <jeff> jeff has joined #dnt
15:52:37 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
15:53:58 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
15:55:08 <ninja> regrets+ johnsimpson
15:55:13 <Chris> Chris has joined #dnt
15:55:29 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:55:36 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:55:40 <walter> zakim, ipcaller is me
15:55:40 <Zakim> +walter; got it
15:55:47 <ninja> zakim, call ninja-office
15:55:47 <Zakim> ok, ninja; the call is being made
15:55:49 <Zakim> +Ninja
15:56:03 <Zakim> +Chris_IAB
15:56:36 <Zakim> +Fielding
15:57:42 <Alan> Alan has joined #dnt
15:58:03 <Zakim> +Wendy
15:58:13 <Zakim> +Jeff
15:58:15 <Zakim> +npdoty
15:58:28 <ninja> Chris_IAB is really Alan
15:58:40 <walter> Someone needs to find the mute button
15:58:44 <walter> or may have found it now
15:59:27 <npdoty> regrets+ kulick
15:59:29 <Zakim> + +31.65.275.aaaa
15:59:34 <Zakim> +Peder_Magee
15:59:39 <ninja> zakim, Chris_IAB is really Alan
15:59:41 <Zakim> +Alan; got it
15:59:49 <Zakim> +Carl_Cargill
15:59:51 <Zakim> +MECallahan
16:00:09 <mecallahan> mecallahan has joined #dnT
16:00:11 <magee> magee has joined #dnt
16:00:14 <walter> that's NL
16:00:25 <Zakim> + +1.323.253.aabb
16:00:29 <justin> justin has joined #dnt
16:00:33 <ninja> zakim, aaaa is robvaneijk
16:00:33 <Zakim> +robvaneijk; got it
16:01:13 <Zakim> +Susan_Israel
16:01:16 <npdoty> Zakim, aabb is Ari
16:01:16 <Zakim> +Ari; got it
16:01:27 <susanisrael> susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:01:38 <Zakim> +Chris_Pedigo
16:02:00 <eberkower> eberkower has joined #dnt
16:02:00 <npdoty> regrets+ JackHobaugh
16:02:07 <ChrisPedigoOPA> ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:02:22 <Zakim> +??P21
16:02:30 <moneill2> moneill2 has joined #dnt
16:02:34 <WileyS> WileyS has joined #dnt
16:02:43 <Zakim> +eberkower
16:02:45 <Chris> Chris Mejia just joined the call
16:02:58 <eberkower> Zakim, mute me, please
16:02:58 <Zakim> eberkower should now be muted
16:03:04 <Zakim> +hefferjr
16:03:24 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:03:26 <Zakim> +[CDT]
16:03:32 <justin> zakim, cdt has me
16:03:32 <Zakim> +justin; got it
16:03:38 <moneill2> zakim, [IPCaller] is me
16:03:38 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
16:03:38 <justin> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:03:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see walter, Ninja, Alan, Fielding, Wendy, Jeff, npdoty, robvaneijk, Peder_Magee, Carl_Cargill, MECallahan, Ari, Susan_Israel, Chris_Pedigo, ??P21, eberkower (muted),
16:03:39 <Zakim> ... hefferjr, moneill2, [CDT]
16:03:39 <Zakim> [CDT] has justin
16:03:59 <npdoty> Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:03:59 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Ninja
16:04:00 <ninja> zakim, ??P21 is Chris Mejia
16:04:00 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P21 is Chris Mejia', ninja
16:04:16 <npdoty> Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:04:16 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Jeff
16:04:23 <sidstamm> sidstamm has joined #dnt
16:04:32 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
16:04:33 <jeff> Zakim, is this Jeff chester or jeff jaffe?
16:04:33 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, jeff.
16:04:36 <kj> kj has joined #dnt
16:04:46 <jeff> OK, I guess its me.
16:04:51 <wseltzer> zakim, ??p21 is Chris_Mejia
16:04:51 <Zakim> +Chris_Mejia; got it
16:05:10 <Zakim> +WileyS
16:05:11 <Alan> Alan Turransky
16:05:18 <npdoty> scribenick: jeff
16:05:25 <Alan> Hello everyone!
16:05:46 <walter> Alan: welcome aboard
16:05:46 <ninja> Hello and welcome Alan
16:05:48 <jeff> Ninja: Welcome to Alan Turransky from IAB, and Chris Mejia as an Invited Expert.
16:05:50 <justin> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Disregarding
16:05:55 <jeff> Justin: Disregard signal
16:05:56 <Zakim> +vincent
16:05:56 <ninja> zakim, take up agendum 1
16:05:56 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Disregard signal, ISSUE-207" taken up [from ninja]
16:06:03 <Zakim> + +aacc
16:06:08 <sidstamm> Zakim, aacc is Mozilla
16:06:09 <Zakim> +Mozilla; got it
16:06:16 <sidstamm> Zakim, Mozilla has me
16:06:16 <Zakim> +sidstamm; got it
16:06:30 <jeff> ... one word away from consensus
16:06:39 <jeff> ... Nick provided Proposal 2 in wiki
16:06:46 <jeff> ... addresses Roy's concerns
16:07:27 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:07:27 <jeff> Justin reads -- > https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Disregarding#Proposal_2:_Proposed_revision_from_Nick
16:08:03 <jeff> Justin: Nick's proposal captures Roy and Mike's issue
16:08:14 <jeff> ... discussion on mailing group
16:08:23 <jeff> ... use of word "unambiguous"
16:08:23 <fielding> q+, I still don't think "MUST be clear" is a testable requirement
16:08:27 <WileyS> Support Nick's proposal - no need for the addition of "unambigious" as suggested by Rob and Mike
16:08:30 <jeff> ... may be non-normative
16:08:34 <justin> q?
16:08:43 <fielding> q+ to say I still don't think "MUST be clear" is a testable requirement
16:08:44 <jeff> ... concerns about Nick's language? (other than unambiguous)
16:08:54 <moneill2> yes I am OK with non-normative bit
16:08:54 <npdoty> ack fielding
16:08:54 <Zakim> fielding, you wanted to say I still don't think "MUST be clear" is a testable requirement
16:09:20 <jeff> Roy: We should be clear in a privacy policy.  But, I don't think MUST be clear is testable.
16:09:23 <walter> q+
16:09:40 <jeff> ... so why would it be a protocol/compliance requirement.
16:09:47 <jeff> ... use non-normative text
16:10:05 <jeff> Justin: TPE states must say was signal is disregarded
16:10:11 <jeff> ... can test if language is there
16:10:21 <jeff> ... not if it is sufficient
16:10:26 <Zakim> +Brooks
16:10:27 <Zakim> +??P35
16:10:36 <jeff> ... so you are saying existing language + non-normative text
16:10:39 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
16:10:41 <jeff> Roy: Yes.
16:11:01 <jeff> ... conceptually OK with Nick's points as non-normative
16:11:24 <jeff> ... Within W3C, "MUSTs" should be testable.
16:11:28 <WMichel> WMichel has joined #DNT
16:11:35 <Zakim> +WaltMichel
16:11:42 <jeff> Justin: How do we convey "ought"?
16:11:50 <moneill2> +q
16:11:53 <schunter> Zakim, ??P1 is schunter
16:11:53 <schunter> Zakim, ??P35 is schunter
16:11:54 <Zakim> I already had ??P1 as Shawn_Henry, schunter
16:11:54 <Zakim> +schunter; got it
16:12:00 <matt> matt has joined #dnt
16:12:06 <Zakim> +MattHayes
16:12:21 <jeff> Roy: "Ought" means MUST to people, but does not require a test suite
16:12:36 <jeff> ... different groups handle differently.
16:12:40 <jeff> Justin: Reasonable.
16:12:40 <justin> q?
16:12:44 <justin> ack walter
16:12:54 <susanisrael> justin, instead of "ought" could it say that being clear will be "helpful"?
16:12:58 <jeff> Walter: Technical validations don't apply to compliance
16:13:10 <jeff> ... regulator will ask how it applies in court of law
16:13:21 <jeff> ... compliance is non technical
16:13:34 <jeff> ... "Ought" in non-normative language is normative
16:13:47 <justin> ack mo
16:13:56 <jeff> Mike: Unambiguous is important
16:14:03 <jeff> ... it is open-ended for server
16:14:09 <jeff> ... no list of tokens
16:14:25 <walter> jeff: Actually, in many jurisdictions a regulator will be willing to give an opinion before going to court
16:14:27 <jeff> ... hence unambiguous clarifies need specific reason
16:14:32 <fielding> I don't think "testable in a court of law" is a level we should be aiming for; courts can test anything, whether it is attached to a MUST or ought.
16:14:33 <WileyS> Please explain the difference between clear and unambigious in that context?
16:14:38 <WileyS> +1
16:14:54 <npdoty> was there an example that would be clear but also ambiguous?
16:14:59 <WileyS> vauge does not equal clear
16:15:01 <walter> fielding: it goes with the territory of compliance specs
16:15:27 <walter> jeff: "in many jurisdictions a regulator will be willing to give an opinion on whether something is ambiguous or not"
16:15:36 <jeff> Mike: Something can be clear in English, but vague in terms of true meaning
16:15:40 <fielding> s/vauge/vague/
16:15:48 <vincent> Example of ambiguous: 'You're request has been ignored because your user agent is compliant or beacause we believe we have an OOBC"
16:16:01 <vincent> not compliant
16:16:23 <jeff> Justin: Are you open to an amendment: give reasons without requiring clarity
16:16:29 <jeff> ... put in non-normative
16:16:37 <justin> q?
16:16:44 <jeff> ... or do you agree you need normative language
16:16:49 <colsen> colsen has joined #dnt
16:16:50 <jeff> s/Are/Nick, are/
16:16:52 <fielding> vincent, that example does not apply; "C" is for OOBC.
16:16:56 <jeff> Nick: I'm flexible.
16:17:12 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
16:17:22 <jeff> Justin: Examples where there are requirements on clear statements (other specs)?
16:17:26 <Zakim> +[FTC]
16:17:31 <jeff> Nick: Geolocation.  Collecting location data.
16:17:41 <vincent> fielding, I agree but I'm thinking of a case where there could be two reasons for rejecting the signal one of them being lack of compliance
16:17:46 <jeff> Justin: Roy do you feel strongly?  Everyone else is mostly on board.
16:17:56 <jeff> ... will this roil the standards community?
16:18:02 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:18:03 <npdoty> from Geo: http://www.w3.org/TR/geolocation-API/#privacy_for_recipients refers to "must clearly and conspicuously disclose"
16:18:06 <adrianba> zakim, [Microsoft] is me
16:18:06 <Zakim> +adrianba; got it
16:18:09 <jeff> Roy: I can't implement it.
16:18:19 <WileyS> After hearing Roy's arguments, I'm now more on the side of not having "MUST be clear" in normative text.  Non-normative feels this is a better path here.
16:18:24 <jeff> ... Is it necessary that compliance be implementable?
16:18:27 <jeff> ... I don't know
16:18:33 <npdoty> the problem isn't unimplementability, the concern was about testing it
16:18:41 <jeff> ... geolocation not good example... didn't go through CR process
16:18:48 <jeff> ... I'm not a process maven
16:18:50 <walter> fielding: the problem with non-normative is that it makes it non-binding
16:18:57 <jeff> ... Maybe W3C Team can make a recommendation
16:18:57 <npdoty> (the documented I cited was a Recommendation, FWIW; even though it's not my favorite section)
16:19:03 <jeff> Justin: We are very close.
16:19:03 <walter> fielding: and a compliance spec that isn't binding is not a compliance spec
16:19:26 <jeff> ... but how does document convey the meaning.
16:19:31 <npdoty> q+
16:19:33 <jeff> ... I'll take it offline with staff
16:19:42 <justin> q?
16:19:43 <jeff> ... Shane says Roy convinced him
16:20:08 <jeff> Nick: We can decide on text and ask for comments about QA process
16:20:33 <jeff> Justin: still some dispute.  Walter, Rob, and Mike want normative
16:20:35 <fielding> walter, the reason it has to be non-binding is because clarity is in the eye of the beholder. What is clear to me is not clear at all to others. I have no ability to implement that requirement, and I would love to be clear ALL the time.
16:20:55 <jeff> Carl: Let's do what Nick said.  W3C staff can comment on the QA issue.
16:21:38 <walter> fielding: ultimately we're crafting a contract here and that is never done under the same constraints as engineering a protocol specificiation
16:21:41 <fielding> Carl's suggestion is fine with me.
16:21:42 <walter> eh, specification
16:21:50 <ChrisPedigoOPA> q+
16:21:53 <npdoty> q-
16:22:08 <justin> ack chris
16:22:09 <jeff> Justin: OK.  Notes that Roy is OK.
16:22:10 <walter> fielding: and as much I'm willing to yield to your opinions on the TPE, as little I'm willing to yield to them on this
16:22:17 <fielding> s/specificiation/specification/
16:22:28 <jeff> Chris: Unambiguous is piling on top.  Unnecessary.
16:22:35 <jeff> ... also Roy's concerns.
16:22:41 <Zakim> -robvaneijk
16:22:46 <jeff> ... how do we define unambiguous?
16:23:03 <Zakim> +robvaneijk
16:23:03 <jeff> ... frivolous words will make companies less likely to implement
16:23:18 <Brooks_> Brooks_ has joined #dnt
16:23:25 <jeff> Justin: It is not non-implementable; just not testable
16:23:30 <jeff> ... editorial decision.
16:23:34 <jeff> ... no CfO
16:23:43 <jeff> ... let's do what Carl proposed
16:23:48 <justin> q?
16:23:56 <walter> I don't think it is an editorial decision
16:24:03 <jeff> rrsagent, make minutes
16:24:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/05/14-dnt-minutes.html jeff
16:24:24 <jeff> Topic: UA compliance
16:24:24 <ninja> zakim, take up agendum 2
16:24:24 <Zakim> agendum 2. "User agent compliance, ISSUE-205" taken up [from ninja]
16:24:31 <justin> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_User_Agent_Compliance
16:24:35 <jeff> Justin: Not a lot of discussion yet.
16:24:47 <jeff> ... two ways to go (unless someone has a third)
16:24:53 <npdoty> action: doty to add updated 207/disregard text, with QA review to follo
16:24:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-448 - Add updated 207/disregard text, with qa review to follo [on Nick Doty - due 2014-05-21].
16:24:56 <jeff> ... Peter + W3C staff have language
16:25:06 <jeff> ... somewhat descriptive (what needs to be presented)
16:25:21 <jeff> ... less prescriptive
16:25:29 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
16:25:33 <jeff> ... Option 2: Not have anything in TCS about UA compliance
16:25:41 <jeff> ... done in TPE (section 3)
16:26:00 <jeff> ... remove section
16:26:13 <jeff> ... haven't heard from Alan Chappel
16:26:31 <jeff> ... Jack has proposed language
16:26:48 <walter> q+
16:26:51 <jeff> ... TCS relies on signals sent by UA in TPE
16:26:53 <Zakim> -Susan_Israel
16:26:57 <justin> ack walter
16:27:21 <jeff> Walter: UA tracking another party should not affect a website tracking a user
16:27:47 <jeff> Justin: Alan's proposal would not affect 3rd party website
16:28:01 <jeff> ... would just say that have cloud based browser; also shouldn't track
16:28:14 <jeff> Walter: I agree that cloud browser shouldn't do that.
16:28:43 <jeff> ... but if cloud browser goes to Amazon it should not affect tracking
16:28:48 <jeff> Justin: Not the intent
16:28:53 <jeff> Walter: That's how I read it.
16:29:17 <justin> q?
16:29:24 <jeff> Justin: Alan will accept a friendly amendment to make that clear
16:29:43 <jeff> ... any other comments?
16:29:48 <jeff> ... contentious in the past
16:29:49 <npdoty> (I think there might have been some confusion about the original proposal; as UAs aren't generally recipients of the DNT signal anyway)
16:29:53 <jeff> ... maybe we are exhausted
16:30:02 <jeff> ... anyone support current language in draft?
16:30:03 <justin> q?
16:30:04 <npdoty> +1 to that
16:30:08 <ninja> I would rather have no text
16:30:08 <walter> I could live with that
16:30:10 <moneill2> +1
16:30:15 <walter> but will happily provide a friendly amendment
16:30:21 <jeff> ... I will take to mailing list.
16:30:22 <Brooks_> q+
16:30:26 <npdoty> great
16:30:28 <justin> ack brooks
16:30:50 <jeff> Brooks: What are the implications of being testable?
16:30:59 <jeff> ... why not the same as in TPE?
16:31:15 <jeff> ... if not testable (must do user's concern) how is it valid?
16:31:23 <npdoty> is this related to the current issue? or just a question of interest?
16:31:31 <jeff> Justin: Good question.  Roy?
16:31:42 <jeff> s/concern/preference/
16:32:08 <justin> q?
16:32:09 <jeff> Roy: It is testable on the UA
16:32:15 <jeff> ... that's all that matters
16:32:18 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:32:24 <walter> someone calling from Belgium
16:32:26 <Zakim> -MECallahan
16:32:29 <Zakim> -robvaneijk
16:32:31 <jeff> [phone operator in some language I don't understand]
16:32:34 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Fielding (33%), [CDT] (13%)
16:32:37 <walter> it was Flemish first
16:33:19 <jeff> ... it is testable, how the user agent sets the signal
16:33:44 <jeff> Brooks: But that is not related to the actual user preference that we must respond to.
16:34:06 <jeff> Roy: That is a theoretical, conceptual problem
16:34:19 <jeff> ... I'm talking about testability at the user
16:34:25 <jeff> ... 100% testable
16:34:31 <npdoty> (as a philosophy grad, I love getting into epistemology)
16:34:37 <walter> npdoty: heh
16:34:37 <jeff> Brooks: The requirement is that it reflect preference at receiving end
16:34:46 <jeff> ... must be testable and is not
16:34:47 <walter> npdoty: let's do a Plato's cave here
16:34:59 <jeff> ... says "signal sent"
16:35:21 <jeff> Roy: It should say "sender"; but "sent" is sufficient.
16:35:28 <justin> q?
16:35:28 <jeff> Justin: Section 4 (TPE) is on the UA
16:35:50 <jeff> ... could be a Last Call objection or a W3C folks issue
16:36:02 <fielding> it is actually on the UA and anything acting as the UA (privacy proxies, for example)
16:36:19 <jeff> Justin: Two more issues
16:36:23 <jeff> Topic: Geolocation
16:36:25 <justin> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Geolocation
16:36:40 <ninja> zakim, take up agendum 3
16:36:40 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Geolocation, ISSUE-202" taken up [from ninja]
16:36:50 <jeff> ... noone favored keeping Geolocation in there
16:37:04 <jeff> ... Mike objected
16:37:10 <npdoty> on UA section, justin will follow up on the mailing list regarding possibly closing this issue by removing text / referring to TPE
16:37:18 <Zakim> -schunter
16:37:23 <jeff> ... because geolocation over time can be identifying
16:37:30 <jeff> ... Singer suggested non-normative text
16:37:36 <fielding> is that not already reflected in the definition of tracking?
16:37:47 <jeff> ... Mike is that OK with you?
16:37:50 <jeff> Mike: Yes.
16:37:54 <jeff> scribenick: Ninja
16:37:55 <walter> Even postal code is often too fine-grained
16:38:23 <fielding> q+
16:38:24 <walter> I've seen a PhD thesis that claimed that it was identifying individuals in over 60% of the cases
16:38:33 <ninja> Mike: Geolocation is used to identify devices and therefore individuals. We should have something somewhere.
16:38:47 <fielding> maybe not … when recorded by a single context
16:38:52 <justin> ack field
16:39:19 <ninja> justin: I agree. But it is in my view not different from other identifying tracking data. Maybe could be added to definition of tracking?
16:39:19 <npdoty> should I remove the requirement section and add non-normative text to Deidentified section?
16:40:07 <ninja> fielding: Pure geolocation data would not be considered tracking data under our definition.
16:40:11 <justin> q?
16:40:28 <ninja> justin: Issue is that over time geolocation data could become identifying.
16:40:43 <ninja> ... I will follow up with an email to the mailing list.
16:40:44 <justin> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Service_Provider
16:40:48 <npdoty> action: doty to remove geolocation req; add non-normative note to de-identified or tracking
16:40:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-449 - Remove geolocation req; add non-normative note to de-identified or tracking [on Nick Doty - due 2014-05-21].
16:40:54 <ninja> zakim, take up agendum 4
16:40:54 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Service Providers, ISSUE-206" taken up [from ninja]
16:40:58 <fielding> … unless it is collected under multiple contexts, in which case it might be identifying user activity across multiple contexts and therefore tracking
16:41:22 <Zakim> +??P2
16:41:27 <ninja> justin: reading out the wiki text proposal from Roy and the existing TCS text
16:41:50 <fielding> I am okay with service provider
16:42:24 <ninja> fielding: Proposed only very small changes.
16:42:49 <ninja> ... Minor tweaks to the bullet list. And first paragraph is more precise in our proposal.
16:43:24 <schunter> Zakim, ??P2 is schunter
16:43:24 <Zakim> +schunter; got it
16:43:41 <ninja> ... Hope that our proposal is just as legally enforceable as the earlier TCS language.
16:44:36 <ninja> justin: Another proposal from Dan Auerbach *reads out*
16:45:08 <walter> q+
16:45:17 <justin> ack walter
16:45:27 <Zakim> +Susan_Israel
16:45:44 <ninja> ... Do some participants want to support this proposal? Or take up parts from it?
16:46:08 <ninja> walter: How does this interact with the same party flag?
16:46:15 <npdoty> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#rep.same-party
16:46:37 <npdoty> service providers might also use the "controller" property to indicate which first party
16:46:49 <ninja> fielding: You would not get this information from the service provider but from the first party via the same party resource.
16:46:57 <justin> q?
16:47:10 <ninja> walter: Not really answers my question. Will follow up with an email.
16:47:33 <fielding> also noted that the change in bullet (4) of our proposal is to allow contracts that are already consistent with the spec but do not use the exact same language
16:47:39 <npdoty> (wants to make sure I'm not missing an action item or something)
16:48:12 <ninja> justin: On Service Providers, I would like to ask folks to look at the text proposals from Roy and Dan and further discuss the issue.
16:48:28 <fielding> s/get this information/get the same-party array/
16:48:40 <ninja> ... Today was to surface the issue and discussion. Let us know what you think about this issue.
16:48:41 <Zakim> -Peder_Magee
16:48:47 <Zakim> -[CDT]
16:48:48 <Zakim> -walter
16:48:48 <Zakim> -Mozilla
16:48:48 <Zakim> -Susan_Israel
16:48:50 <Zakim> -Alan
16:48:50 <Zakim> -adrianba
16:48:50 <Zakim> -vincent
16:48:51 <Zakim> -WaltMichel
16:48:51 <Zakim> -Chris_Pedigo
16:48:52 <Zakim> -[FTC]
16:48:52 <Zakim> -Chris_Mejia
16:48:53 <Zakim> -npdoty
16:48:53 <Zakim> +robvaneijk
16:48:53 <Zakim> -moneill2
16:48:53 <ninja> ... Thank you for today.
16:48:55 <Zakim> -Brooks
16:48:56 <Zakim> -Jeff
16:48:57 <Zakim> -Wendy
16:48:58 <ninja> Adjourned
16:48:59 <Zakim> -eberkower
16:49:00 <Zakim> -Fielding
16:49:08 <Zakim> -Ninja
16:49:09 <Zakim> -Carl_Cargill
16:49:19 <Zakim> -WileyS
16:49:20 <npdoty> Zakim, list attendees
16:49:20 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been walter, Ninja, Fielding, Wendy, Jeff, npdoty, +31.65.275.aaaa, Peder_Magee, Alan, Carl_Cargill, MECallahan, +1.323.253.aabb, robvaneijk,
16:49:23 <Zakim> ... Susan_Israel, Ari, Chris_Pedigo, eberkower, hefferjr, justin, moneill2, Chris_Mejia, WileyS, vincent, +aacc, sidstamm, Brooks, WaltMichel, schunter, MattHayes, [FTC], adrianba
16:49:24 <Zakim> -hefferjr
16:49:26 <Zakim> -schunter
16:49:27 <Zakim> -Ari
16:49:29 <npdoty> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
16:49:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/05/14-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
16:49:32 <Zakim> -robvaneijk
16:49:35 <Zakim> -MattHayes
16:49:36 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
16:49:36 <Zakim> Attendees were walter, Ninja, Fielding, Wendy, Jeff, npdoty, +31.65.275.aaaa, Peder_Magee, Alan, Carl_Cargill, MECallahan, +1.323.253.aabb, robvaneijk, Susan_Israel, Ari,
16:49:36 <Zakim> ... Chris_Pedigo, eberkower, hefferjr, justin, moneill2, Chris_Mejia, WileyS, vincent, +aacc, sidstamm, Brooks, WaltMichel, schunter, MattHayes, [FTC], adrianba
16:49:52 <ninja> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:49:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/05/14-dnt-minutes.html ninja
16:50:23 <Craig> Craig has joined #DNT
16:51:21 <ninja> chair: justin
16:51:31 <ninja> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:51:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/05/14-dnt-minutes.html ninja