16:55:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
16:55:49 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/11/05-dnt-irc
16:55:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:55:51 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dnt
16:55:53 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be TRACK
16:55:53 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM already started
16:55:54 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
16:55:54 <trackbot> Date: 05 November 2014
16:55:58 <Zakim> +rvaneijk
16:58:14 <Zakim> +npdoty
16:58:19 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:58:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see rvaneijk, npdoty
16:58:26 <npdoty> chair: schunter
16:58:35 <npdoty> regrets+ justin, cargill
16:59:41 <Zakim> +[FTC]
16:59:51 <kulick> kulick has joined #dnt
16:59:54 <Zakim> +WileyS
17:00:13 <WileyS> WileyS has joined #dnt
17:00:14 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
17:00:55 <Zakim> +Fielding
17:01:07 <Zakim> +??P12
17:01:13 <Zakim> +kulick
17:01:32 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
17:01:44 <npdoty> Zakim, ??p12 is schunter
17:01:44 <Zakim> +schunter; got it
17:02:21 <Zakim> +vincent
17:02:56 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:02:56 <moneill2> zakim,[IPcaller is me]
17:02:57 <Zakim> +me]; got it
17:03:25 <npdoty> scribenick: npdoty
17:03:45 <npdoty> agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2014Nov/0011.html
17:03:55 <npdoty> Topic: TPE Last Call comments
17:04:14 <wseltzer> zakim, me] is moneill2
17:04:14 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
17:04:15 <npdoty> schunter: first topic is TPE Last Call comments, go through to see what consensus is emerging
17:04:18 <npdoty> issue-262?
17:04:19 <trackbot> issue-262 -- guidance regarding server responses and timing -- pending review
17:04:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/262
17:04:30 <vincent> I have a proposal :)
17:04:32 <npdoty> schunter: long discussion on the mailing list. emerging consensus?
17:04:47 <npdoty> ... basically, how to deal with ad auctions, data returned from a winner
17:04:49 <Zakim> +Wendy
17:04:55 <wseltzer> zakim, who is here?
17:04:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see rvaneijk, npdoty, [FTC], WileyS, Fielding, schunter, kulick, vincent, moneill2, Wendy
17:04:58 <Zakim> On IRC I see vincent, fielding, WileyS, kulick, Zakim, RRSAgent, moneill2, rvaneijk, schunter, npdoty, walter, hober, wseltzer, trackbot
17:05:05 <Zakim> +Chris_Pedigo
17:05:06 <wseltzer> npdoty: summarizing my suggestion
17:05:06 <Zakim> -Chris_Pedigo
17:05:07 <jeff> jeff has joined #dnt
17:05:17 <wseltzer> ... for TPE, we need to look at how to respond ot the user
17:05:24 <rvaneijk> q+
17:05:26 <wseltzer> ... existing response value ?, dynamic
17:05:27 <WileyS> I agree with Nick's suggestion - my comments are more specific to the TCS side of this conversation.  Responding with "?" is fair in this scenario.
17:05:34 <Zakim> +Chris_Pedigo
17:05:40 <wseltzer> ... actual response value could be sent in the TK response header
17:05:54 <wseltzer> s/ot/to
17:05:56 <Zakim> +Jeff
17:06:08 <vincent> q+
17:06:11 <fielding> q+
17:06:20 <npdoty> schunter: [summarizing]
17:06:21 <wseltzer> schunter: ? indiciating it depends on the auction; then auction winner sends back the header of how we'll handle
17:06:34 <schunter> ack r
17:07:09 <npdoty> rvaneijk: clarifying questions. about URL: the full URL is not necessary, truncated form does not need to be retained very long. is that correct?
17:07:10 <WileyS> This is a TCS specific discussion - not a TPE element
17:07:27 <WileyS> Who determine truncation rules?  Sometimes the query string is important, sometimes it is not.
17:07:44 <npdoty> ... if the query string can be truncated immediately, or if it could be aggregated within a certain time
17:08:00 <moneill2> +q
17:08:08 <npdoty> schunter: sounds like a compliance discussion
17:08:12 <WileyS> Depends on the URL
17:08:16 <npdoty> rvaneijk: is the full URL needed, or just the domain information?
17:08:31 <schunter> ack v
17:08:45 <fielding> I am guessing Rob means the Referer URL?
17:09:05 <rvaneijk> fielding, yes.
17:09:10 <npdoty> vincent: my understanding is that if the bid winner provides the final answer to the DNT request, it won't know everything about the other bid losers who were involved
17:09:35 <npdoty> ... for example, if one of them believed it had a web-wide exception it may have tracked the user anyway
17:10:04 <npdoty> schunter: your point is that if the non-winners share or publish data, but only the winner responds, then the user doesn't learn the right thing
17:10:24 <npdoty> vincent: bid losers that don't respect DNT could profile users anyway
17:10:31 <WileyS> Then the Exchange should not respond that it honors DNT
17:10:34 <schunter> q?
17:10:37 <schunter> ack f
17:10:52 <Zakim> +hefferjr
17:10:54 <npdoty> fielding: my preference in changes of TPE would be to use a different tracking status value for the exchange model
17:11:03 <vincent> +1
17:11:13 <npdoty> ... to handle any type of situation where the server is relaying to multiple origin servers (an HTTP gateway)
17:11:23 <npdoty> ... a common enough model that it probably deserves a response
17:11:35 <npdoty> ... client would expect to retain information about both the gateway and the winning bidder
17:12:15 <npdoty> ... it would then be easier to discuss compliance as a separate problem, rather than what all dynamic responses need to answer
17:12:30 <npdoty> ... rather than making a change at this late date
17:13:02 <npdoty> schunter: general pattern would be the same (TSV and then Tk header later), just a different value
17:13:08 <rvaneijk> no objection from protocol side
17:13:11 <npdoty> q+ what does the user learn?
17:13:15 <schunter> ack m
17:13:18 <npdoty> q+ to ask what does the user learn?
17:13:52 <rvaneijk> moneill2, I think all should receive the DNT through the ad exchange
17:14:00 <npdoty> moneill2: if you pass the DNT signal through a gateway to the multiple bidders, hard to send site-specific DNT consent mechanism, or opt-out cookies
17:14:07 <npdoty> ... requires broadcasting
17:14:09 <rvaneijk> NT could be passed with the bid request
17:14:26 <rvaneijk> But that is a compliance issue
17:14:49 <fielding> What the user gains is the ability to make pre-flight requests on the gateway's well-known URI and having a response from that gateway that does not prevent dynamic responses later on.
17:14:52 <npdoty> moneill2: there seems to be an ambiguity. don't need web-wide confirm, just needs tighter text description
17:15:29 <npdoty> q?
17:15:47 <npdoty> schunter: sounds like everyone is fine with the two stage response approach
17:16:09 <npdoty> ... questions seem to be about the compliance side about passing on the DNT signal to all bidders, or have control over the data sent to the bidders
17:16:38 <npdoty> ... but for non-winners, the user does not have awareness or control
17:17:03 <vincent> unique IDs and URL
17:17:04 <rvaneijk> bidders that do not win the bid MUST be prohibited to enhancing profiles for later targeting
17:17:29 <WileyS> +q
17:17:45 <npdoty> moneill2: downstream bidders can only determine consent through our user-granted exception model, which won't be passed down
17:17:55 <schunter> ack n
17:17:55 <Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to ask what does the user learn?
17:18:19 <schunter> Agreement was:
17:18:20 <wseltzer> npdoty: Question about TPE resolution
17:18:27 <schunter> 1. 2phase approach
17:18:31 <fielding> rvaneijk, that would be what receiving DNT:1 requires if the recipient complies; not sure what good that would do if the recipient does not comply.
17:18:37 <wseltzer> ... I agree with the two-stage response, but not sure I see the value of a separate gateway signal
17:18:49 <wseltzer> ... why isn't the existing response enough?
17:18:57 <schunter> 2. Gateway signal ("G") instead of "?"
17:21:22 <npdoty> ack WileyS
17:21:43 <npdoty> WileyS: this is a common enough use case, a significant fraction of online ads that are served
17:22:08 <npdoty> ... separate signal, as opposed to generic ?
17:22:20 <npdoty> ... a common and well-understood dynamic in industry. you can do more by having a specific signal
17:23:04 <npdoty> ... regarding Compliance, allow downstream bidders, if they have in their most recent interaction with the user have been provided a user-granted exception
17:23:16 <moneill2> +q
17:23:27 <npdoty> ... if the exchange passes on the DNT: 1, but if the server saw a user-granted exception on their most recent interaction with the user
17:23:50 <npdoty> ... can re-confirm the UGE status when they next interact with the user, like when they win the bid
17:23:57 <npdoty> ... don't have direct access to the user agent in this case
17:24:19 <fielding> I don't know exactly what will be necessary to convince users that a gateway is trustable with the DNT signal, but I do know that it will be easier for a UA if we distinguish between a gateway to multiple data controllers versus a dynamic response from a single data controller.
17:24:33 <npdoty> schunter: if a party participating in an auction has a user-granted exception, they should be able to track the data
17:24:53 <npdoty> [not-scribing, fielding, but what do you expect a user agent to actually do that's different?]
17:25:00 <schunter> 1. Pass on DNT;1
17:25:03 <rvaneijk> fielding: agree with the point on being able to distinguish.
17:25:06 <npdoty> [besides just making it easier to block ad exchanges?]
17:25:10 <schunter> 2. If you have an UGE, you can use data
17:25:13 <fielding> … And I don't want to change the protocol later just to satisfy that distinction. It is near zero cost to add it right now (the cost being on me to define it).
17:25:15 <schunter> 3. If not, you cant.
17:25:24 <schunter> 4. The winner sends a response.
17:25:38 <npdoty> q+
17:25:47 <schunter> ack m
17:25:57 <npdoty> schunter: sounds plausible that if you have a UGE, then you can track this user
17:26:23 <npdoty> moneill2: ad exchange in this circumstance should reply with a "T"
17:26:46 <npdoty> ... either you use the consent mechanism that we have, or you send a user identifier so that they can be matched by the bidder to see if they have consent
17:27:01 <schunter> Remaining open question: How can we enable the bidders to look up a UGE in a privacy friendly way.
17:27:03 <npdoty> ... it's possible to come up with mechanisms that solve this by getting consent
17:27:29 <vincent> agree with moneill2, you're basically sharing the data (URL and UID) with other bidders
17:27:31 <npdoty> ... should interpret G as T, since this is tracking as far as I'm concerned
17:27:35 <schunter> ack n
17:27:42 <vincent> well sharing the data is prohibited...
17:27:49 <WileyS> Bid loser would not store the data at a per user/device level
17:28:07 <vincent> q+
17:28:40 <vincent> q-
17:28:57 <WileyS> +q
17:29:03 <fielding> Don't forget that first party advertisers also use exchanges on their own sites and sometimes win their own auctions.
17:29:18 <wseltzer> npdoty: concerned about parties to the exchange system not updating their understandings of user consent
17:29:34 <wseltzer> ... when DNT/UGE changes
17:30:42 <vincent> q+
17:30:45 <kulick_> kulick_ has joined #dnt
17:31:00 <wseltzer> shane: I don't think we'll see UGE at that scale
17:31:03 <rvaneijk> bid losers MUST be prohibited enhancing profiles for later targeting
17:31:08 <rvaneijk> bid losers MUST be prohibited enhancing profiles for later targeting
17:31:09 <wseltzer> ... we should be transparent to the user about what's happening
17:31:52 <wseltzer> ... when bid winner, who had UGE previously, should send back a response saying didn't honor DNT
17:32:10 <wseltzer> ... then user can send back DNT and show the site that he changed his mind
17:32:29 <wseltzer> ... build and plan for common case (infrequent changing of minds)
17:32:46 <wseltzer> schunter: inclined to agree with Shane
17:32:56 <npdoty> schunter: policy-management portal at Yahoo to manage exceptions. sort of assume they stay valid until you hit this portal again
17:33:16 <npdoty> ... inclined to agree
17:33:40 <npdoty> schunter: do we have agreement that non-winning bidders must not use this data for tracking purposes?
17:33:42 <npdoty> q?
17:33:52 <schunter> ack w
17:33:54 <moneill2> +q
17:33:57 <schunter> ack v
17:34:32 <npdoty> vincent: already considering an edge case, where a Web-wide exception case -- the site-wide exception is already covered
17:35:03 <kulick> I just wanted to point out that the existence of UID is not considered tracking per the definition of tracking ("Tracking is the collection of data regarding a particular user's activity across multiple distinct contexts and the retention, use, or sharing of data derived from that activity outside the context in which it occurred."). I heard someone mention that in their opinion that having...
17:35:04 <kulick> ...uids would be tracking.
17:35:14 <npdoty> ... ad exchange will broadcast the signal, but a specific ad network identifies that it has a Web-wide exception
17:35:34 <schunter> We seem to have consensus that (a) DNT;1 signal is passed (a) "G" is first responded, then (b) parties with a web-wide UGE can re-use obtained data even if they loose the auction, (c) winners respond with their final answer
17:35:38 <npdoty> ... agree we should address the common case, but disagree on what the common case is
17:35:52 <WileyS> Its okay for the ad exchange because its a service provider to the participants in the auction
17:36:08 <moneill2> +q
17:36:13 <npdoty> q+
17:36:17 <schunter> (d) Non-winners without a UGE must not keep the data for tracking purposes.
17:36:28 <vincent> if it behaves on behalf of one of the bidders, it should sent T in its behalf
17:36:30 <fielding> Note that "G" would only appear in the tracking status resource for the exchange -- it would not be in the header field response, which only contains the dynamic response from bid winner
17:36:33 <npdoty> ack moneill
17:36:59 <npdoty> moneill2: the only way for the downstream bidders to determine whether they have a UGE requires sharing a user identifier, which is tracking
17:37:10 <WileyS> Its behaving as a Service Provider for mulitiple participants so "G" is better here
17:37:33 <npdoty> ... spec says user identifiers shouldn't be used unless there is no other option, and consent is our option
17:37:50 <WileyS> DNT DOES NOT halt sharing of IDs for ad transactions
17:37:58 <npdoty> schunter: not sure I understand. only way to do it is to forward identifiers
17:38:36 <npdoty> WileyS: confusion on identifiers. (repost from kulick above) passing an identifier as part of an advertising transaction is a permitted use, so I don't see an issue there
17:38:54 <vincent> sharing of UID AND URL would be prohibited
17:39:00 <vincent> q+
17:39:29 <npdoty> ... service provider acting on behalf of multiple parties. if the different ad networks had been elements on the page already, would have received those ids. permitted uses around security, frequency capping, financial
17:39:54 <npdoty> schunter: unique ID is sprayed over the Web, but no one receiving it is using it for outside the permitted uses
17:40:07 <schunter> ack n
17:40:17 <vincent> TCS:  When a third party to a given user action receives a DNT:1 signal in a related network interaction:      that party MUST NOT collect, share, or use data related to that interaction;
17:40:26 <rvaneijk> q+
17:40:53 <WileyS> Losing bidder so only be able to retain de-identified/aggregate data - nothing user/device specific
17:41:18 <wseltzer> npdoty: it would be concerning if non-winning bidder retained info without any communications to user
17:41:34 <npdoty> q-
17:41:39 <kulick> but they wont be tracked by non-bid winners
17:41:50 <wseltzer> ... gateway needs to take responsibility for combining responses if service-provider to multiple parties
17:42:15 <npdoty> not-scribing, WileyS, kulick -- that's my understanding as well, but I think schunter's text was suggesting that multiple parties would track, and the user would never receive that feedback
17:42:47 <rvaneijk> additional normative requirement for the ad exchange: data minimisation (truncate the query string of the referrer URL immediately)
17:43:19 <moneill2> +q
17:43:21 <WileyS> Nick - I'm okay with stating the bid-loser can not retain user/device specific data
17:43:39 <wseltzer> schunter: strategic behavior possible from those who've obtained UGE, if they put in low bids just to get info on multiple auctions they lose
17:43:47 <schunter> ack v
17:43:48 <wseltzer> ... yet never communicate back to users
17:44:06 <wseltzer> vincent: It's not just the UserID, but also URLs in the bid request that are problematic
17:44:21 <schunter> Two alternatives seem to emerge:
17:44:30 <wseltzer> ack rvaneijk
17:44:34 <schunter> 1. The (a)-(d) case
17:44:44 <WileyS> The 3rd party is not sharing - the Service Provider (representing the 3rd party) is passing it to themselves (where a service provider = the party they are representing).
17:44:51 <wseltzer> rvaneijk: second Vincent. can we add some normative requirements on conveyance of full URL?
17:44:56 <schunter> 2. A case where only the winner can keep data (using or ot using a UGE)
17:44:57 <wseltzer> ... I think only domain should be necessary
17:44:58 <WileyS> URL truncation - you are incorrect.  What data do you have to defend your position?
17:45:10 <wseltzer> q?
17:45:15 <npdoty> scribenick: npdoty
17:45:17 <schunter> ack m
17:45:17 <npdoty> ack mon
17:45:21 <WileyS> Opinions aren't has helpful in areas where companies spend millions of dollars to defend their businesses.
17:45:55 <schunter> If we find a way to provide transparency (who has tracked you), then the option (a)-(d) may be more accetable.
17:45:59 <rvaneijk> WIleyS: had discussions with some long tail companies.
17:46:13 <vincent> WileyS, the service provider can not represent multiple entities at a given time. The one it represents is sharing data if you prefer, but that's still sharing
17:46:18 <npdoty> moneill2: comment to WileyS about the confirming UGE. when a user has consent with a large number of bidders, it would add to latency to add to a cookie all the sites with UGEs
17:46:22 <WileyS> Vincent - yes they can.
17:46:34 <WileyS> Vincent - your stating they can't doesn't change that.
17:46:43 <npdoty> ... ad exchange could have a subset of sites for which it polls for a user-granted exception
17:46:50 <npdoty> ... will send to mailing list
17:47:13 <rvaneijk> q+
17:47:32 <npdoty> schunter: options are either my (a)-(d) where background tracking can go on. or where data can't be retained by bid losers (as if only the winner interacted with you)
17:47:33 <WileyS> Matthias - agree with that approach.
17:48:25 <npdoty> WileyS: agree with the latter approach. bid losers wouldn't retain information even if they felt they had a UGE, because they wouldn't have a chance to communicate back to the user
17:48:56 <rvaneijk> q-
17:49:07 <npdoty> ... chance to explain to the user. as a bid winner, if you didn't want to consent, can fix that as soon as talked to the user agent
17:49:17 <schunter> Consensus: Non-winners must not retain individualised data; Winner can use UGE (to keep tracking data) and is able to provide transparancy by response header.
17:49:23 <fielding> How is winner going to convey that they assumed UGE (as opposed to consent)?
17:49:24 <npdoty> ... bid losers would keep aggregate or deidentified information to remember that they lost, but nothing user or device specific or profiling
17:49:31 <fielding> q+
17:49:35 <rvaneijk> q+
17:49:41 <schunter> ack r
17:49:47 <npdoty> ack fielding
17:49:49 <npdoty> q+ rvaneijk
17:50:08 <WileyS> Roy - I was thinking "C" here as well
17:50:23 <npdoty> fielding: if the bid-winner communicates that they have User-Granted Exception, how do they respond? "C" is used for having consent
17:50:30 <npdoty> schunter: I think "C"
17:50:39 <schunter> ack r
17:51:04 <npdoty> rvaneijk: use case of an ad exchange that has bidders that respect DNT and bidders that don't respect DNT
17:51:21 <npdoty> ... would prefer outcome that only allows bidding parties that do adhere to DNT standard
17:51:28 <WileyS> Rob - that will push the entire ecosystem to not support DNT
17:51:31 <npdoty> schunter: ad exchange has to be responsible for enforcing requirements
17:51:41 <npdoty> q+
17:51:42 <fielding> that would introduce a chicken and egg problem to deployent
17:51:51 <WileyS> Rob - you are wrong - please speak to companies on this matter
17:51:59 <fielding> s/deployent/deployment/
17:52:05 <npdoty> rvaneijk: lack of adoption doesn't speak to the actual problem of accountability
17:52:13 <npdoty> ... otherwise doesn't express much meaning
17:52:44 <WileyS> +Q
17:52:55 <vincent> agree with rvaneijk. Plus we should support privacy friendly alternatives that would be able to differenciate themselves
17:52:55 <npdoty> schunter: concern is that if the user uses DNT and the ad exchange supports it, then the user won't be aware of the data collection
17:53:05 <schunter> ack n
17:53:58 <wseltzer> npdoty: 2 levels of concern: if bidders in ad exchange doesn't support DNT and doesn't support rules of auction, keeping data
17:54:20 <schunter> Compromise: The ad exchange is responsible to ensure that no identifying data is kept by the non-winners (by contractual means or by DNT compliance or by not forwarding IDs)
17:54:36 <npdoty> ack WileyS
17:54:39 <npdoty> WileyS: similar
17:55:29 <npdoty> ... the real-world dynamics are about how businesses work. there's a timeframe where the exchange can only turn on DNT support once every bidder already supports it
17:55:47 <npdoty> ... unlikely to kick out bidders who don't support DNT
17:56:09 <npdoty> ... would push away from industry support of DNT
17:56:38 <npdoty> ... for transparency purposes, indicate that it's a mixed state. "G" could indicate that it includes both parties that support and parties that don't support DNT
17:56:42 <moneill2> Wiley, the ad exchange just replies with T unless it knows all the bidders support DNT
17:57:03 <npdoty> ... if there were direct communication with the user agent, the user agent could be configured to not send requests to those servers
17:57:30 <npdoty> ... if you felt that was appropriate, you could still do that with the "G" response. user agents could stop transactions on "G" because of that uncertainty
17:57:42 <npdoty> ... it would be a long wait
17:58:21 <npdoty> schunter: in that case "G" would be the same as "T" about potential tracking
17:58:37 <npdoty> ... even if the winner eventually says that they don't track
17:59:07 <npdoty> WileyS: more likely that ad exchanges may just not respond to DNT signals
17:59:25 <npdoty> ... until you have widespread support, you'd just be silent
17:59:44 <npdoty> ... but I think it would be better to get exchanges and many bidders to support, which could then entice others
17:59:53 <npdoty> ... but I don't think we should start that way
18:00:12 <npdoty> schunter: need to move on
18:00:24 <npdoty> ... write down a consensus version, regarding non-winners not storing information
18:00:34 <npdoty> ... and remaining question about ad exchange accountability or enforcement
18:00:56 <npdoty> ... who can take an action item to write this down?
18:01:10 <WileyS> I'm on vacation starting this evening - please pick someone else
18:02:43 <npdoty> schunter: important to write down that we agreed that non-winners are not to keep data. just a question of how to enforce it
18:03:08 <npdoty> rvaneijk: understand Shane's point about different levels of ad exchange support
18:03:16 <npdoty> schunter: can you write down this part we agree on?
18:03:35 <npdoty> rvaneijk: think there should be a middle path, should have more discussion
18:03:46 <vincent> q+
18:04:06 <schunter> Consensus: (1) Ad exchange responds with "G", (2) winner returns header and may use UGE, (3) non-winners must not keep data
18:04:07 <npdoty> ack vincent
18:04:14 <npdoty> vincent: still think there are differences
18:05:01 <npdoty> not-scribing, fielding, are you going to write up a "G" proposal?
18:05:18 <npdoty> schunter: rvaneijk, can you summarize the consensus before the next call?
18:05:23 <WileyS> I'll be on vacation for a bit so please don't take my silence on the discussion as agreement :-)
18:05:45 <fielding> BTW, I will be at the IETF in Honolulu next week, so may or may not have time to write.
18:05:47 <npdoty> rvaneijk: don't want an action item at this time
18:06:02 <npdoty> schunter: consensus on those three points.
18:06:22 <schunter> Open question: How to handle bidders who may not satify our requirement not to keep data.
18:06:26 <fielding> action on fielding to draft a G response for exchanges
18:06:26 <trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/users>.
18:06:41 <npdoty> issue-266?
18:06:41 <trackbot> issue-266 -- automatic expiration of a tracking preference exception via API parameter -- raised
18:06:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/266
18:06:59 <npdoty> schunter: dsinger not here, can postpone discussion
18:07:01 <npdoty> q+
18:07:03 <fielding> action fielding to draft a G response for exchanges
18:07:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-463 - to draft a g response for exchanges [on Roy Fielding - due 2014-11-12].
18:07:30 <npdoty> q-
18:08:12 <npdoty> not-scribing, was just going to say that we should make sure we have the proposal from moneill2
18:08:29 <fielding> slackers
18:08:58 <npdoty> <discussion about keeping to 60 minutes>
18:09:13 <npdoty> schunter: made some progress on this issue, but push the rest to the next call
18:09:29 <WileyS> Thank you Matthias!
18:09:29 <npdoty> ... currently finishing the audience measurement cfo, should send around in the next week
18:09:32 <npdoty> ... anything else?
18:09:36 <Zakim> -Chris_Pedigo
18:09:39 <Zakim> -WileyS
18:09:45 <Zakim> -npdoty
18:09:46 <Zakim> -[FTC]
18:09:46 <Zakim> -kulick
18:09:47 <vincent> thanks nick
18:09:47 <Zakim> -Wendy
18:09:47 <Zakim> -schunter
18:09:47 <npdoty> [adjourned]
18:09:51 <Zakim> -vincent
18:09:53 <Zakim> -Fielding
18:09:53 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
18:09:55 <npdoty> Zakim, list attendees
18:09:55 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been rvaneijk, npdoty, [FTC], WileyS, Fielding, kulick, schunter, vincent, [IPcaller], moneill2, Wendy, Chris_Pedigo, Jeff, hefferjr
18:09:58 <Zakim> -moneill2
18:10:00 <npdoty> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
18:10:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/05-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
18:10:14 <Zakim> -Jeff
18:10:22 <Zakim> -hefferjr
18:10:23 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
18:10:23 <Zakim> Attendees were rvaneijk, npdoty, [FTC], WileyS, Fielding, kulick, schunter, vincent, [IPcaller], moneill2, Wendy, Chris_Pedigo, Jeff, hefferjr
18:10:34 <npdoty> Zakim, bye
18:10:34 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dnt
18:10:37 <npdoty> RRSAgent, bye
18:10:37 <RRSAgent> I see no action items