16:00:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
16:00:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/09/10-dnt-irc
16:00:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:00:48 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dnt
16:00:50 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be TRACK
16:00:50 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM already started
16:00:51 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
16:00:51 <trackbot> Date: 10 September 2014
16:00:52 <npdoty> Zakim, this is 87225
16:00:52 <Zakim> npdoty, this was already T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
16:00:53 <Zakim> ok, npdoty; that matches T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM
16:01:17 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
16:01:23 <dsinger> zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:01:25 <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
16:01:43 <Zakim> +vincent
16:01:50 <Zakim> +justin
16:01:50 <fielding> zakim, who is on the call?
16:01:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see Jack_Hobaugh, Fielding, WaltMichel, [Apple], vincent, justin
16:01:52 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:02:02 <Zakim> +npdoty
16:02:05 <fielding> zakim, who is making noise?
16:02:08 <moneill2> moneill2 has joined #dnt
16:02:16 <Zakim> fielding, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: 7 (13%)
16:02:22 <npdoty> regrets+ cargill, wileys
16:02:37 <vinay> vinay has joined #dnt
16:02:38 <Zakim> +vinay
16:02:45 <vincent> sure
16:02:51 <Zakim> +eberkower
16:02:51 <npdoty> scribenick: vincent
16:03:07 <eberkower> Zakim, mute me, please
16:03:07 <Zakim> eberkower should now be muted
16:03:08 <vincent> justin: progress on TPE issue last call comments
16:03:10 <Zakim> + +1.813.907.aaaa
16:03:13 <Zakim> +kulick
16:03:22 <rvaneijk> rvaneijk has joined #dnt
16:03:30 <sidstamm> sidstamm has joined #dnt
16:03:35 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:03:40 <wseltzer> regrets+ wseltzer
16:03:44 <sidstamm> hey all, sorry I can't call in today but will be on IRC
16:03:45 <vincent> justin: issues to be disuccsed at the end of the call
16:03:47 <kulick> kulick has joined #dnt
16:03:50 <moneill2> zakim, [IPCaller] is me
16:03:50 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
16:04:13 <vincent> ... the first thing on compliance, most issues are already addressed
16:04:44 <vincent> ... not many thing to bring to the group , mostly on security & fraud and discussing fraud prevention but wait for next week
16:05:08 <npdoty> issue-237?
16:05:08 <trackbot> issue-237 -- Revise Financial Logging section -- raised
16:05:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/237
16:05:08 <vincent> ... NAI has put an issue on financial login issue 237
16:05:56 <vincent> JackHobaugh: that came out from discussion with indistry oin cotober 13 so would like to discuss that with other
16:06:13 <Zakim> +??P13
16:06:13 <vincent> justin: I'll send to the list to discuss
16:06:19 <Zakim> +Brooks
16:06:19 <rvaneijk> Zakim, P13 is me
16:06:20 <Zakim> sorry, rvaneijk, I do not recognize a party named 'P13'
16:06:26 <rvaneijk> Zakim, ??P13 is me
16:06:26 <Zakim> +rvaneijk; got it
16:06:29 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
16:06:52 <vincent> ... if people notice issue on issue tracker that should be discussed, please send them
16:06:56 <justin> q?
16:06:56 <vincent> q?
16:07:10 <justin> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Deidentification
16:07:19 <vincent> justin: now disucssing de-identificaiton
16:07:25 <Zakim> +ChrisPedigoOPA
16:07:35 <ChrisPedigoOPA> ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:07:36 <dsinger> So far, the definition itself seems to be surviving…
16:07:54 <dsinger> Jack H? Is this acceptable?
16:08:05 <vincent> dsinger, revised the text on the wiki including based on previsous definitions by Roy, vincent, JackHobaugh
16:08:23 <vincent> ... do we have a consensus on this definition
16:08:33 <dsinger> I tried very hard to incorporate what I could from Jack’s text, but it was a bit long as a *definition*
16:09:00 <vincent> .... JackHobaugh,are you ok with the new definition
16:09:34 <vincent> JackHobaugh: same than with issue 237, would have to go back with other participant so don't have an answer now
16:09:49 <vincent> ... best option would be to leave this option in
16:09:59 <fielding> dsinger, "can and will never" looks weird.  either "cannot" or "cannot and will not" would be better
16:10:16 <vincent> justin: we should go on the call on objection on this issue
16:10:23 <rvaneijk> q+
16:10:29 <dsinger> to Roy: yes, you are right
16:10:32 <npdoty> dsinger, fielding, can we refer to "a user" or "a user, user agent or device" rather than new human subject terminology?
16:10:40 <justin> ack rv
16:10:42 <vincent> ... do we want to modify the definition on the call or on the list
16:11:19 <vincent> rvaneijk: I think we're very closed, discuss with vincent to see if we can align the definitions in that context
16:11:21 <rvaneijk> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2014Sep/0017.html
16:11:32 <fielding> npdoty, that is handled by the indirect language
16:11:41 <fielding> yes
16:11:54 <vincent> ... the email sent raises two questions: is the informative text be including in the spec
16:12:01 <fielding> yes (non-normative text intended for spec)
16:12:03 <vincent> dsinger: yes
16:13:04 <vincent> rvaneijk: the second thing is the non-binding nature of the informative text, the definition is more binding, the informative text is more a background context but does not describe what is expected
16:13:25 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:13:27 <Chapell> Chapell has joined #DNT
16:13:36 <walter> zakim, ipcaller is me
16:13:36 <Zakim> +walter; got it
16:13:46 <vincent> dsinger: if there is a need to make it normative I'm fine
16:13:48 <moneill2> im fine with normative also
16:14:10 <vincent> dsinger: I can use information infromative or normative interchangeably
16:14:13 <Zakim> +Chapell
16:14:24 <npdoty> we use "informative" the same as "non-normative"
16:14:52 <vincent> fielding: the reason I don't want more normative text, is becaase it is very strict
16:15:28 <ChrisPedigoOPA> can someone post a link to this issue again?
16:15:34 <npdoty> q+
16:15:44 <npdoty> ChrisPedigoOPA, https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Deidentification#A_short_definition_followed_by_an_advisory_section
16:15:47 <vincent> rvaneijk: the first thing is about the state of the de-identified data and we thing that calling for a requirement on transparency is not weakiening the definition
16:16:01 <justin> zakim, issue-188
16:16:01 <Zakim> I don't understand 'issue-188', justin
16:16:05 <justin> issue-188
16:16:05 <trackbot> issue-188 -- Definition of de-identified (or previously, unlinkable) data -- open
16:16:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/188
16:16:13 <justin> there you go, chrispedigoOPA
16:16:14 <moneill2> +q
16:16:14 <vincent> justin: does any want to explain why transparency was an issue
16:16:15 <dsinger> q+
16:16:30 <justin> ack npd
16:16:54 <fielding> q+
16:17:21 <kulick_> kulick_ has joined #dnt
16:17:25 <justin> ack mo
16:17:29 <vincent> npdoty: on the transparency suggestion, we got to the point that you can have this defintion and have the transparency requirement in a seperate section
16:17:30 <dsinger> it is already a separate section
16:17:32 <Kj_> Kj_ has joined #dnt
16:18:17 <npdoty> separate orthogonal requirement would look like this: https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Deidentification&oldid=76100#Additional_.28orthogonal.29_transparency_requirement
16:18:21 <justin> ack ds
16:18:26 <vincent> moneill2: we should have something about transparency somewhere, in the definition as it is the issue the might be about the "high level of confidence"
16:19:05 <walter> +1
16:19:13 <vincent> dsinger: the question of how confident you are to have de-identified the data is up to you, we require to be fully confident
16:19:27 <npdoty> dsinger, I thought your current text does use "a high level of confidence"
16:19:49 <vincent> ... how do we measure the confidence of people who make the de-identificaiton?
16:20:12 <rvaneijk> ok, fine with me!
16:20:18 <justin> ack fie
16:20:23 <npdoty> it seems like Rob/Vincent's #3 is already covered by existing informative text in the proposal
16:20:27 <vincent> ... the second point on transprency, fine with moving it to the definition
16:20:37 <dsinger> confidence is a poor requirement. it cannot be measured, and it weakens the definition
16:21:01 <walter> disclosure doesn't mean putting it in a privacy policy
16:21:13 <walter> and if you have that many processes it may be time to standardise  them
16:21:16 <vincent> fielding: I would not know how to put all the different anonymzation process in the policy, never gonna happen
16:21:32 <dsinger> can we meet on ‘it is a best practice to disclose the means…’ (which is informative)?
16:21:46 <vincent> ...it is impossible to maintain the policy at the same rate than the anonymization process
16:22:07 <vincent> justin: I'm find with having that as a separate issue
16:22:10 <justin> q?
16:22:12 <vincent> q+
16:22:33 <npdoty> rvaneijk, vincent -- would you accept Roy's suggestion that this text can't or won't be implemented?
16:22:47 <npdoty> vincent: part of the issue would be ...
16:22:48 <kulick> cant hear
16:23:00 <kulick> better
16:23:02 <kulick> thx
16:23:10 <npdoty> ... transparency requirement is a way to assess the level of confidence
16:23:28 <fielding> legal document
16:23:45 <npdoty> justin: do you have a response to fielding's comment that providing real-time, public-facing details is not scalable?
16:24:05 <npdoty> vincent: could be a separate section of a privacy policy
16:24:24 <npdoty> justin: the argument was that there may be thousands of datasets
16:24:29 <walter> or a separate set of documents altoghether
16:24:33 <walter> eh, altogether
16:24:37 <npdoty> vincent: if we keep it as a "should", isn't that a solution?
16:24:48 <npdoty> q+
16:24:51 <rvaneijk> q+
16:24:56 <justin> ack vince
16:24:59 <dsinger> a SHOULD would mean that Roy’s organization would state in their policy why it is impractical for them
16:25:09 <rvaneijk> is there no way to generically describe the applied methodologies?
16:25:37 <dsinger> “SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
16:25:37 <dsinger>    may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
16:25:38 <dsinger>    particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
16:25:39 <dsinger>    carefully weighed before choosing a different course."
16:25:50 <npdoty> fielding: we want 100% permanent deidentification, but effectively impossible in a sufficiently large organization
16:25:54 <rvaneijk> q-
16:26:14 <vincent> justin: the two option would be to say that in the policy or describe it generally and then to recommand it instead
16:26:15 <justin> ack npd
16:26:37 <fielding> effectively impossible to describe all of the processes on how it is achieved given that we are talking about many datasets managed by many organizations.
16:26:49 <moneill2> +q
16:26:50 <walter> q+
16:26:53 <vincent> npdoty: it would be great if we can an agreement, if we want to continue the discussion the issue might be the level of detail fo transparency
16:27:19 <vincent> ... if we're gonna continue this way, maybe we should specify the type of garantee we expect
16:27:38 <justin> ack mo
16:28:54 <dsinger> can we ask for a disclosure of either the process, or the ‘quality’ target (e.g. “exceeds the level required in HIPPA”)?
16:29:13 <dsinger> q?
16:29:15 <dsinger> q+
16:29:19 <justin> ack walter
16:29:27 <vincent> moneill2: 99% of tracking done through cookie UID, they don't have to provide a lot of detail about how they de-identify it, but a general explanation
16:30:48 <vincent> walter: the defintion is not only about what data is being process but how data is process, anonymization is a type of processing
16:30:50 <justin> ack ds
16:31:33 <vincent> ... I'd say you are required to do so by the durrent european regulation
16:31:42 <fielding> I don't see what this has to do with DNT
16:32:37 <npdoty> I think walter was saying that if you're already required by European law to satisfy certain transparency requirements, maybe it's not impossible
16:32:47 <walter> fielding: anonymisation is a way of processing personal data and under EU DP rules you must disclose your methods for processing personal data upon request of data subjects anyway
16:32:56 <vincent> dsinger: in the informative text, I attached the text about small about group of users for webstie that do a lot of aggregation
16:33:09 <walter> Ok, Skype was cocking up again here
16:33:17 <vincent> ... we could say you publish either the method or the quality that you acheived
16:33:29 <vincent> justin: is that possible in any way?
16:33:34 <walter> My point was that you should provide pointers (points of contact) in your organisation where someone would be able to obtain the current information
16:33:54 <vincent> fielding: woould have to check with vinay
16:33:54 <justin> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:33:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see Jack_Hobaugh, Fielding, WaltMichel, [Apple], vincent, justin, npdoty, vinay, eberkower (muted), +1.813.907.aaaa, kulick, moneill2, rvaneijk, Brooks,
16:33:58 <Zakim> ... ChrisPedigoOPA, walter, Chapell
16:33:58 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:34:01 <justin> 813 area code?
16:34:41 <kulick> +1 to Roy
16:34:49 <eberkower> That MIGHT be Ronan Heffernan
16:35:00 <eberkower> with the 813 area code
16:35:01 <dsinger> (I also fear we are straying outside DNT into general data protection)
16:35:17 <rvaneijk> a permanently identified state is a black-box concept without transparency
16:35:25 <vincent> fielding: if this would limited to log file data that may work, if a dataset is comming from a company and ask for detail about how data is being processed for a specific user, we could do that, it's expensive
16:35:42 <walter> fielding: that's why I'm in favour of keeping it outside the legal document
16:35:52 <walter> fielding: because this is not easy to do in general
16:36:05 <vincent> ... my issue is that if we do it generally the answer would be wrong most of the time cause policy are not easy to modify
16:36:06 <justin> ack vinay
16:36:12 <eberkower> Nick, Ronan (813 area code) does not appear to be on IRC, so you may have to ask on the phone line
16:36:48 <vincent> vinay: we have many different product and a typicall consumer would not understand the anonymization process or care at that level of detail
16:36:50 <rvaneijk> consumers may not care, but resuarchers would, and advocates and regulators
16:37:06 <npdoty> +1, many people see transparency requirements as useful not all for end users, but for enabling external review (like researchers or regulators)
16:37:12 <moneill2> +q
16:37:36 <vincent> justin: privacy policy are more for regulators anyway
16:37:41 <justin> ack mo
16:37:51 <dsinger> (I support Justin’s idea that we make this a separate issue, and take the de-id sections otherwise forward.)
16:37:58 <fielding> walter, it is considerably easier to deal with a specific question from a specific user than to attempt to generalize across all data sets and publish a single set of processes that we extect to be 100% accurate across all of the data sets.
16:38:34 <justin> disinger, if we can't resolve this, then we are definitely doing that!
16:38:48 <vincent> moneill2: we're jsut talking about tracking here, if you are collecting a unique piece of data about someone of vesiting your website, so it should focus on explaining why keeping persistent unique ID is not tracking
16:38:50 <rvaneijk> q+
16:39:01 <justin> ack rva
16:39:04 <vincent> justin: the question is what level of detail a company can offer about that
16:39:11 <fielding> s/extect/expect/
16:39:18 <Zakim> -Chapell
16:40:18 <Zakim> -ChrisPedigoOPA
16:40:24 <vincent> rvaneijk: I'm just discussing about the process of "permanently de-identifying" the data, not focusing on persistent cookie which a pseudonymous
16:40:43 <npdoty> +1 to dsinger, justin on a separate issue for the orthogonal text. we could iterate on that text offline
16:40:44 <vincent> justin: does the context of anonymization require transparency?
16:41:13 <vincent> rvaneijk: no it does not, you should explain why this data is being de-identified
16:41:43 <dsinger> I made the editorial/textual change Roy put in IRC.  Are there any other changes to this definition and accompanying section?
16:41:46 <justin> q?
16:41:48 <vincent> justin: we're going to go for a call from objection and try to see if we can result the issue on the list, if there is a middle ground on transparency
16:41:53 <walter> vincent: Rob said that you have to be able to explain why you think the data is no longer personal data
16:41:58 <npdoty> dsinger, I was hoping for "a user" rather than new "human subject"
16:42:24 <vincent> dsinger: are there any other change that I should make to the text?
16:42:26 <walter> I actually disagree with rvaneijk's reading of the transparency obligation, his is narrower than the grammatical text in the Directive
16:42:33 <vincent> thx walter
16:42:41 <npdoty> +1, I think the 3rd is already covered
16:42:42 <dsinger> to Roy on that;  I wrote “user, user-agent, or device"...
16:43:14 <npdoty> that's why I suggested "a user" rather than "the user"
16:43:44 <vincent> I did not catch that
16:44:02 <vincent> justin: why user, user-agent or device does not accomplish the same thing
16:44:12 <walter> vincent: don't worry, scribing is bloody hard
16:44:14 <npdoty> fielding: don't want it to be about any human subject, including humans that aren't the particular user (like my friend's email address)
16:45:09 <walter> fielding: I understood that bit and I would be in favour of a transparency obligation that takes that route instead of forcing Adobe to publish everything in a privacy policy
16:45:09 <npdoty> we haven't interpreted "user agent" before as "a version number of a browser software"
16:45:11 <vincent> fielding: if  I want data about a specific version of user-agent, it is not about a human, it is about a user-agent
16:45:33 <dsinger> sounds like we should insert something in the accompanying section.
16:45:35 <vincent> justin: we do define user-agent already and it's not a browser version
16:45:43 <walter> fielding: what may have been to mutilated by Skype when I said it, but I wouldn't want something that burdensome to anyone.
16:45:59 <vincent> ... it could be misinterpratated in both ways
16:46:01 <npdoty> maybe fielding is suggesting "indirectly, for example via user agent or device"
16:46:26 <vincent> dsinger: we could improve the text on the informative section to address the confusion
16:46:31 <fielding> parenthetical would be better
16:46:34 <justin> q?
16:47:10 <fielding> indirectly (e.g., via association with an identifier, user agent, or device),
16:47:35 <vincent> npdoty: roy's text on IRC is good
16:47:50 <vincent> fielding: I'd keep human subject and add the parenthesis
16:48:04 <walter> consistency is a good thing
16:48:31 <vincent> npdoty: if we go through the document it is confusing to have the word "human subject" in several places
16:48:32 <dsinger> I inserted the parenthesis https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Deidentification#New_Text
16:48:59 <npdoty> I believe so, yes
16:49:07 <vincent> dsinger: is the new text correct
16:49:08 <npdoty> thanks, dsinger
16:49:13 <fielding> looks good
16:49:19 <vincent> justin: everyone seems on bord with that
16:50:10 <JackHobaugh> Correct
16:50:22 <npdoty> yes, I'll do that
16:50:41 <vincent> justin: we're going to go on a call for objection about personalization and audience measurement
16:50:48 <npdoty> q+ on personalization
16:50:59 <JackHobaugh> My “Correct” was to Justin’s statement regarding personalization.
16:51:07 <justin> ack npd
16:51:08 <Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to comment on personalization
16:52:00 <vincent> missed that
16:52:28 <npdoty> npdoty: to confirm, question is whether to remove the No Personalization section or to leave current text
16:52:42 <vincent> thx npdoty
16:52:55 <npdoty> ... and separate to the Call for Objections, there's an editorial task about making sure we edit about the personalization or not
16:53:06 <vincent> justin: the last issue left is how to incoprate the defintion of tracking
16:53:21 <npdoty> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Tracking_Third_Party_Compliance
16:53:29 <vincent> fielding: offered two options
16:53:35 <fielding> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2014Sep/0016.html
16:53:42 <vincent> npdoty: the wiki is now updated to reflect the options
16:54:01 <vincent> justin: next week we are going to discuss this issue
16:54:09 <walter> fielding: feel free to get in touch on the transparency issue if you need clarification
16:54:12 <justin> q?
16:54:32 <vincent> justin: anyone on irc is ok with discussing issue next week?
16:54:46 <npdoty> Topic: TPE Last Call issues
16:54:46 <vincent> ... now moving to the TPE issue
16:54:53 <fielding> issue-261?
16:54:53 <trackbot> issue-261 -- requirement on UAs for user-granted exceptions -- closed
16:54:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/261
16:55:53 <justin> q?
16:55:59 <vincent> fielding: issue 261 is a comment wg members, it's an issue similar to issue 1561 that has been closed
16:56:14 <npdoty> s/1561/151/
16:56:23 <fielding> issue-263?
16:56:23 <trackbot> issue-263 -- restriction on use of data by user agents -- pending review
16:56:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/263
16:56:27 <vincent> ...issue 161, but an issue can not be re-open after last call, that's why it's closed
16:56:55 <vincent> ... issue 263, is the restrictued use of data by user agent
16:57:31 <vincent> ... the comments is specifically about how a user would be able to configure it's user agent but it 's independant of the protocol so marked as "won't fix"
16:57:39 <npdoty> "MUST NOT rent, sell or share personal and behavioral data with any Third-party."
16:57:41 <vincent> justin: what are they requiring from the UA
16:58:33 <vincent> justin: might be similar to the issue chappel raised at some point
16:58:36 <npdoty> q+
16:58:37 <walter> no, it would not
16:58:38 <Zakim> -vinay
16:58:45 <walter> this has been discussed extensively
16:58:52 <walter> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/263
16:59:28 <Zakim> -WaltMichel
16:59:42 <dsinger> This is the Amazon browser conversation?
16:59:44 <vincent> fielding: I think it's more about the fact that if the UA has access to user credentials, they should not use it for commercial use, but is not the scope of DNT
16:59:46 <dsinger> q?
16:59:49 <dsinger> q+
16:59:53 <JackHobaugh> I think 263 needs further discussion on the List Serve.
16:59:54 <justin> ack npd
17:00:28 <npdoty> q-
17:00:36 <justin> ack ds
17:00:52 <vincent> npdoty: there is some confusion about what the user agent should do, so when the browser is speaking to the vendor then the vendor is just a site and receive the signal
17:00:59 <fielding> JackHobaugh, you are welcome to do so -- my messages are sent to the list to be sure that the WG can comment (agree or disagree)
17:01:41 <vincent> dsinger: the question remain about what DNT has to do with amazon browser,  but this is not a dynamic choice that is sent to different website, the user made a choice when starting to use the browser
17:01:53 <vincent> ... so agree with fielding
17:02:00 <fielding> definitely, all sorts of privacy issues with browsers
17:02:00 <dsinger> There ARE privacy issues, for sure.  They are not the scope of DNT, I think.
17:02:01 <walter> there are, but I'm with Roy Fielding when he says that it is outside the remit of this group
17:02:14 <npdoty> I think there could be interesting discussions about what browser privacy expectations should be, but I don't think DNT is the way to talk to your browser.
17:02:32 <vincent> justin: there are privacy issues but it might be out-of scope
17:02:34 <fielding> issue-264?
17:02:34 <trackbot> issue-264 -- requirement on UAs for setting cookies -- pending review
17:02:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/264
17:03:22 <justin> q?
17:03:24 <vincent> fielding: issue 264, also has nothing to do with DNT
17:03:32 <vincent> justin: no objection
17:03:44 <npdoty> I think the latest on the cookie is this, fyi: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6265
17:03:51 <vincent> justin: thank you editors for all the work
17:03:56 <walter> dsinger: let's hope you're not holding your breath as part of that hope
17:04:04 <fielding> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/6
17:04:11 <vincent> dsinger: have you progressed on the JS issue?
17:04:37 <dsinger> notes that we are making progress on the JS issues (but Adrian is out for a few days).  Hope for something for the list soon
17:04:50 <dsinger> notes that Roy and I have to make sure we have complete coverage between us
17:04:52 <vincent> justin: fielding any update on other issues?
17:05:01 <justin> q?
17:05:11 <vincent> fielding:  working on 254 and 257, could be discussed next week
17:05:18 <Zakim> -kulick
17:05:19 <Zakim> -vincent
17:05:19 <Zakim> -eberkower
17:05:20 <Zakim> -walter
17:05:20 <Zakim> -[Apple]
17:05:22 <Zakim> -justin
17:05:23 <Zakim> -npdoty
17:05:25 <Zakim> -Jack_Hobaugh
17:05:25 <Zakim> -Brooks
17:05:26 <Zakim> - +1.813.907.aaaa
17:05:26 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
17:05:27 <Zakim> -moneill2
17:05:29 <npdoty> Zakim, list attendees
17:05:29 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Fielding, Jack_Hobaugh, WaltMichel, dsinger, vincent, justin, npdoty, vinay, eberkower, +1.813.907.aaaa, kulick, moneill2, Brooks,
17:05:33 <Zakim> ... rvaneijk, ChrisPedigoOPA, walter, Chapell
17:05:34 <Zakim> -Fielding
17:05:35 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:05:35 <Zakim> Attendees were Fielding, Jack_Hobaugh, WaltMichel, dsinger, vincent, justin, npdoty, vinay, eberkower, +1.813.907.aaaa, kulick, moneill2, Brooks, rvaneijk, ChrisPedigoOPA, walter,
17:05:35 <Zakim> ... Chapell
17:05:39 <npdoty> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:05:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/10-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
17:06:48 <npdoty> Zakim, bye
17:06:48 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dnt
17:06:50 <npdoty> rrsagent, bye
17:06:50 <RRSAgent> I see no action items