Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group teleconference Chair: aleecia 15:28:51 RRSAgent has joined #dnt 15:28:51 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/09/05-dnt-irc 15:28:58 Zakim has joined #dnt 15:29:03 Zakim, this will be dnt 15:29:03 ok, aleecia_; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 31 minutes 15:29:12 chair: aleecia 15:29:23 regrets+ jmayer, jchester 15:29:34 rrsagent, make logs public 15:30:14 aleecia has joined #dnt 15:30:30 Zakim, agenda? 15:30:31 I see nothing on the agenda 15:30:51 agenda+ Selection of scribe 15:31:02 agenda+ Review of overdue action items: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner 15:31:12 agenda+ Quick check that callers are identified 15:31:30 agenda+ Any questions on the following quick summary of where we are on issues we've been talking about 15:32:10 agenda+ (a) ACTION-208 on Ian Fette: Draft a definition of DNT:0 expression -- issue-148 15:32:20 agenda+ (b) Specify "absolutely not tracking" (ISSUE-119) 15:33:13 agenda+ (c) Buried in this discussion (of "absolutely not tracking") was David Singer's attempt to define tracking 15:33:26 agenda+ (d) Issue-148, What does DNT:0 mean? 15:33:43 agenda+ (e) Issue-25, Possible exemption for research purposes 15:33:56 agenda+ Announce next meeting & adjourn 15:34:44 tl has joined #dnt 15:49:56 npdoty has joined #dnt 15:50:22 Zakim, agenda? 15:50:22 I see 10 items remaining on the agenda: 15:50:24 1. Selection of scribe [from aleecia] 15:50:24 2. Review of overdue action items: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner [from aleecia] 15:50:24 3. Quick check that callers are identified [from aleecia] 15:50:24 4. Any questions on the following quick summary of where we are on issues we've been talking about [from aleecia] 15:50:26 5. (a) ACTION-208 on Ian Fette: Draft a definition of DNT:0 expression -- issue-148 [from aleecia] 15:50:27 6. (b) Specify "absolutely not tracking" (ISSUE-119) [from aleecia] 15:50:29 7. (c) Buried in this discussion (of "absolutely not tracking") was David Singer's attempt to define tracking [from aleecia] 15:50:32 8. (d) Issue-148, What does DNT:0 mean? [from aleecia] 15:50:34 9. (e) Issue-25, Possible exemption for research purposes [from aleecia] 15:50:36 10. Announce next meeting & adjourn [from aleecia] 15:50:39 Good morning, Nick 15:50:51 Thanks! I believe we are set. 15:51:16 thank you, thank you, thank you. 15:51:26 T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started 15:51:33 + +1.408.674.aaaa 15:51:43 rigo has joined #dnt 15:51:46 zakim, aaaa is aleecia 15:51:46 +aleecia; got it 15:52:41 +Rigo 15:53:19 zakim, who is here? 15:53:19 On the phone I see aleecia, Rigo 15:53:30 thanks! 15:53:36 (I'm already muted :-) 15:53:58 muted chairs are an intrinsic contradiction 15:54:01 BrendanIAB has joined #dnt 15:54:14 Call hasn't started... 15:54:25 I'll hear enough of my own voice soon enough 15:54:38 +??P30 15:54:48 damiano has joined #dnt 15:54:53 Zakim, ??P30 is probably BrendanIAB 15:54:53 +BrendanIAB?; got it 15:55:19 fielding has joined #dnt 15:55:25 + +1.609.258.aabb 15:55:47 Zakim, aabb is me 15:55:47 +efelten; got it 15:56:40 + +1.510.859.aacc 15:56:57 Chapell has joined #DNT 15:57:04 Zakim, aacc is npdoty 15:57:04 +npdoty; got it 15:57:22 Joanne has joined #DNT 15:57:23 + +1.813.358.aadd 15:58:00 - +1.813.358.aadd 15:58:12 no 15:58:19 i'm trying to join with a google number 15:58:21 + +1.714.852.aaee 15:58:36 sidstamm has joined #dnt 15:58:38 Zakim, aaee is fielding 15:58:38 +fielding; got it 15:58:38 cblouch has joined #dnt 15:58:42 dwainberg has joined #dnt 15:58:57 + +1.646.801.aaff 15:59:03 samsilberman has joined #dnt 15:59:07 zakim, aaff is dwainberg 15:59:07 +dwainberg; got it 15:59:26 +[Mozilla] 15:59:28 Zakim, Mozilla has sidstamm 15:59:28 +sidstamm; got it 15:59:31 + +1.703.265.aagg 15:59:31 + +1.813.358.aahh 15:59:36 - +1.813.358.aahh 15:59:38 dsinger has joined #dnt 15:59:46 + +1.415.520.aaii 15:59:51 + +1.781.472.aajj 15:59:56 tedleung has joined #dnt 16:00:01 Zakim, aaii is Joanne 16:00:01 vincent has joined #dnt 16:00:01 +Joanne; got it 16:00:07 + +1.425.269.aakk 16:00:12 + +1.510.501.aall 16:00:16 +[Apple] 16:00:18 zakim, [apple] has dsinger 16:00:20 +dsinger; got it 16:00:28 zakim, aagg is cblouch 16:00:28 +cblouch; got it 16:00:35 adrianba has joined #dnt 16:00:35 zakim, aajj is samsilberman 16:00:37 vinay has joined #dnt 16:00:38 +samsilberman; got it 16:00:43 zakim, who is on the phone? 16:00:43 On the phone I see aleecia, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, efelten, npdoty, fielding, dwainberg, [Mozilla], cblouch, Joanne, samsilberman, +1.425.269.aakk, +1.510.501.aall, [Apple] 16:00:46 Chris_IAB has joined #dnt 16:00:47 [Mozilla] has sidstamm 16:00:49 [Apple] has dsinger 16:00:52 + +1.206.664.aamm 16:00:52 WileyS has joined #DNT 16:00:54 still trying to get an operator 16:00:55 + +1.609.981.aann 16:01:02 zakim aamm is tedleung 16:01:12 Zakim, aamm is tedleung 16:01:12 +tedleung; got it 16:01:15 + +1.212.380.aaoo 16:01:20 +Cyril_Concolato 16:01:29 just joined the call from 212 16:01:32 i'm not hearing any audio 16:01:36 laurengelman has joined #dnt 16:01:39 good morning. anyone care to volunteer to scribe? 16:01:43 zakim, Cyril_Concolato is vincent 16:01:43 +vincent; got it 16:01:45 justin_ has joined #dnt 16:01:51 + +1.408.349.aapp 16:01:54 -tedleung 16:02:01 Ted, you should hear beeps as people join the group 16:02:01 dsriedel has joined #dnt 16:02:02 + +1.917.934.aaqq 16:02:11 zakim, aaqq is vinay 16:02:17 +vinay; got it 16:02:25 ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt 16:02:25 That bodes not well 16:02:31 +tedleung 16:02:37 Zakim, aaoo is Chris_IAB 16:02:40 +??P67 16:02:40 ok i heard aleecia 16:02:42 +Chris_IAB; got it 16:02:49 -npdoty 16:02:52 + +1.202.637.aarr 16:03:10 +npdoty 16:03:11 zakim, pick a victim 16:03:11 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose +1.202.637.aarr 16:03:13 i can do it 16:03:13 + +1.202.744.aass 16:03:22 zakim, aarr is justin_ 16:03:22 +justin_; got it 16:03:23 scribenick: tedleung 16:03:28 + +49.721.83.aatt 16:03:30 hwest has joined #dnt 16:03:38 agenda? 16:03:39 zakim, aatt is me 16:03:43 Zakim, aass is ChrisPedigoOPA 16:03:51 review of overdue action items 16:03:54 CraigSpiezle has joined #dnt 16:03:56 AN has joined #dnt 16:04:01 + +1.813.358.aauu 16:04:03 +dsriedel; got it 16:04:05 + +1.646.827.aavv 16:04:07 +ChrisPedigoOPA; got it 16:04:18 + +1.678.492.aaww 16:04:19 +[Microsoft] 16:04:23 zakim, [Microsoft] is me 16:04:25 zakim, mute me 16:04:27 +[Google] 16:04:41 +adrianba; got it 16:04:43 dsriedel should now be muted 16:04:49 issue-65? 16:04:49 ISSUE-65 -- How does logged in and logged out state work -- open 16:04:49 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/65 16:05:22 justin thought there was general consensus - proposes closing 16:05:24 I am stuck in another meeting. Will be late. 16:05:28 + +1.202.346.aaxx 16:05:31 + +1.202.835.aayy 16:05:39 er, pending review 16:05:50 Marc has joined #DNT 16:05:50 action-196 to pending review 16:05:59 + +aazz 16:06:05 action-248 16:06:12 Marc is 202 835-9810 16:06:28 action-248 is a duplicate of action-241, npdoty to fix 16:06:29 pedermagee has joined #dnt 16:06:31 zakim, aayy is Marc 16:06:31 +Marc; got it 16:07:06 action-235 - awaiting review of text from people in group. extend by 1 week 16:07:45 issue-84? 16:07:45 ISSUE-84 -- Make DNT status available to JavaScript -- closed 16:07:45 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/84 16:07:46 zakim, mute me 16:07:48 adrianba should now be muted 16:07:57 + +1.202.326.bbaa 16:08:04 cOlsen has joined #dnt 16:08:21 is anything left to be done, though? the status is now available to JS, both the general ones, and the site-specific ones, in today's text 16:08:54 johnsimpson has joined #dnt 16:09:03 action-200 - ian - still looking for use cases to drive api designs 16:09:10 ifette has joined #dnt 16:09:20 dsinger, could you take over action-226 ? 16:09:55 + +1.415.520.bbbb 16:09:56 after dsinger's comment, propose to close action-200 with a note. dsinger to close 16:10:07 KevinT has joined #dnt 16:10:18 + +1.310.292.bbcc 16:10:28 action-226 dsinger and fielding to resolve 16:10:32 reading the long email behind the action now... 16:10:48 zakim,310.292.bbcc is me 16:10:48 sorry, johnsimpson, I do not recognize a party named '310.292.bbcc' 16:10:55 missed the action number we are discussing 16:11:04 zakim, bbcc is me 16:11:04 +johnsimpson; got it 16:11:18 action-229? 16:11:18 ACTION-229 -- Chris Pedigo to draft crisp definition [of data append] -- due 2012-08-01 -- OPEN 16:11:18 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/229 16:11:57 action-229 - ChrisPedigoOPA - draft text to the list and discussion proceeding, moving to pending review to work through boundaries of data append vs service provider 16:12:06 Brooks has joined #dnt 16:12:27 schunter has 2 issues which are mostly internal; he is not on the call 16:12:37 agenda? 16:12:56 Zakim, who is on the phone? 16:12:57 On the phone I see aleecia, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, efelten, fielding, dwainberg, [Mozilla], cblouch, Joanne, samsilberman, +1.425.269.aakk, +1.510.501.aall, [Apple], +1.609.981.aann, 16:13:00 ... Chris_IAB, vincent, +1.408.349.aapp, vinay, tedleung, ??P67, justin_, npdoty, ChrisPedigoOPA, dsriedel (muted), +1.813.358.aauu, +1.646.827.aavv, +1.678.492.aaww, adrianba 16:13:01 zakim, who is making noise? 16:13:03 ... (muted), [Google], +1.202.346.aaxx, Marc, +aazz, +1.202.326.bbaa, +1.415.520.bbbb, johnsimpson 16:13:06 [Mozilla] has sidstamm 16:13:07 [Apple] has dsinger 16:13:13 dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: npdoty (91%) 16:13:16 zakim, bbbb is KevinT 16:13:16 +KevinT; got it 16:13:18 = check for identified callers = 16:13:37 Zakim, aavv is Matt_AppNexus 16:13:37 +Matt_AppNexus; got it 16:13:40 - +1.678.492.aaww 16:13:43 zakim, aann is tl 16:13:43 +tl; got it 16:13:43 Zakim, aaww is Brooks 16:13:44 sorry, npdoty, I do not recognize a party named 'aaww' 16:13:44 i am 415 16:13:48 Zakim, aall is Lee 16:13:48 +Lee; got it 16:13:57 Zakim, it hurts me every time you forget my name. 16:13:57 I don't understand you, tl 16:14:07 And that's the saddest part =[ 16:14:24 + +1.678.580.bbdd 16:14:31 Zakim, aaxx is hwest 16:14:31 +hwest; got it 16:14:38 Zakim, bbaa is FTC 16:14:38 +FTC; got it 16:14:44 Zakim, who is on the phone? 16:14:46 On the phone I see aleecia, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, efelten, fielding, dwainberg, [Mozilla], cblouch, Joanne, samsilberman, +1.425.269.aakk, Lee, [Apple], tl, Chris_IAB, vincent, 16:14:46 ... +1.408.349.aapp, vinay, tedleung, ??P67, justin_, npdoty, ChrisPedigoOPA, dsriedel (muted), +1.813.358.aauu, Matt_AppNexus, adrianba (muted), [Google], hwest, Marc, +aazz, FTC, 16:14:46 ... KevinT, johnsimpson, +1.678.580.bbdd 16:14:46 [Mozilla] has sidstamm 16:14:46 [Apple] has dsinger 16:14:58 Zakim, aakk is sue 16:14:58 +sue; got it 16:15:00 678 580 - Brooks 16:15:01 i'm on the phone, google voice 16:15:02 Zakim, aapp is WileyS 16:15:02 +WileyS; got it 16:15:20 Zakim, bbdd is Brooks 16:15:20 +Brooks; got it 16:15:20 I might be the VOIP if not the 415 16:15:34 Zakim, ??P67 is damiano 16:15:34 +damiano; got it 16:15:56 Zakim, who is on the phone? 16:15:56 On the phone I see aleecia, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, efelten, fielding, dwainberg, [Mozilla], cblouch, Joanne, samsilberman, sue, Lee, [Apple], tl, Chris_IAB, vincent, WileyS, vinay, 16:15:59 ... tedleung, damiano, justin_, npdoty, ChrisPedigoOPA, dsriedel (muted), +1.813.358.aauu, Matt_AppNexus, adrianba (muted), [Google], hwest, Marc, +aazz, FTC, KevinT, johnsimpson, 16:15:59 ... Brooks 16:15:59 [Mozilla] has sidstamm 16:15:59 [Apple] has dsinger 16:16:33 Zakim, drop aauu 16:16:33 +1.813.358.aauu is being disconnected 16:16:34 - +1.813.358.aauu 16:16:44 ok that was me :-( 16:17:02 issue-148 16:17:09 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0314.html 16:17:17 Upon receiving a request with DNT:0, a site may assume the user has provided them with explicit consent to continue with data collection, retention, and use practices including but not limited to the placement and reading of cookies and personalization services. Additionally, restrictions placed on the collection, retention, and use of data by this recommendation shall not apply to any data received as part of a request with a DNT:0 signal. 16:17:23 action-208? 16:17:23 ACTION-208 -- Ian Fette to draft a definition of DNT:0 expression -- issue-148 -- due 2012-06-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW 16:17:23 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/208 16:17:24 Zakim, damiano is really laurengelman 16:17:24 +laurengelman; got it 16:17:28 + +1.813.358.bbee 16:17:34 Zakim, bbee is damiano 16:17:34 +damiano; got it 16:18:00 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0421.html 16:18:12 proposed addition in url above 16:18:21 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0428.html 16:18:32 rigo's proposed addition in url above 16:18:49 Folks, as said, this shortcut only works in the US legal 16:18:49 environment. The previous definition would have worked also for the 16:18:51 EU as we need positive semantics there (allowance talk) because we 16:18:52 have to open the legislative restrictions with a positive statement 16:18:52 of the user attached to that DNT:0 token. 16:19:06 I agree with Rigo 16:19:10 KJ has joined #dnt 16:19:27 q+ to ask whether using a legal term (whose definition varies by jurisdiction) of "explicit consent" is a good or bad idea? 16:19:36 q- 16:19:43 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0313.html 16:19:55 counter proposal in url above 16:19:59 When a user sends the DNT:0 signal they are expressing a preference for 16:19:59 a personalised experience. This signal indicates explicit consent for 16:20:01 data collection, retention, processing, disclosure, and use by the 16:20:02 recipient of this signal. This recommendation places no restrictions on 16:20:02 data from requests received with DNT:0. 16:20:21 I agree also with text from Tom 16:20:36 I can live with the pure text from Tom 16:20:47 q+ to ask whether using a legal term (whose definition varies by jurisdiction) of "explicit consent" is a good or bad idea? 16:20:47 q+ 16:20:57 ack dsinger 16:20:57 dsinger, you wanted to ask whether using a legal term (whose definition varies by jurisdiction) of "explicit consent" is a good or bad idea? 16:21:05 aleecia thinks the two texts are close together, authors of texts disagree 16:21:31 Legal obligations will always trump the standard so don't get too hung up here 16:21:39 +1 16:22:26 +1, if laws disagree, they won't be hung up by our text 16:22:44 Speaking of "Global Considerations" document - where is that??? 16:22:49 seems useful to clarify DNT:0 / explicit consent / local jurisdictions 16:22:52 q? 16:22:53 susanisrael has joined #dnt 16:22:55 ack rigo 16:22:57 + +1.215.286.bbff 16:23:00 +! This text would never meet legal requirements it doesn't meet. We can still say that it's as explicit consent as we can communicate this way. 16:23:20 215286bbff is susanisrael 16:23:27 Zakim, bbff is susanisrael 16:23:27 +susanisrael; got it 16:23:30 +1 to laws in respective jurisdictions trumping the standard 16:23:50 rigo is against clarifying jurisdictions, prefers tl's text 16:23:55 so we have: 1. need to make sure we don't say "explicit consent" in a legal threshold, just say we consider it consent. 2. add non-norm text of "check with your lawyer" 16:23:56 q+ 16:23:58 Was this my text? 16:24:02 ack ifette 16:24:06 tl, :) 16:24:10 or just make it a requirement that sending DNT:0 is only allowed when the UA has explicit consent 16:24:13 tl, this is your text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jun/0313.html 16:24:15 ...it's been so long 16:24:29 q+ 16:24:36 ack fielding 16:24:41 q+ 16:25:00 roy, purpose is "current" as in P3P 16:25:58 is "personalized experience" enough of a purpose for EU contexts? 16:26:37 ack dwainberg 16:26:41 fielding to propose some wordsmithing changes 16:27:07 When a user sends the DNT:0 signal, they are expressing explicit consent for data collection, retention, processing, disclosure and use by recipient of this signal for the purpose of a personalized experience. 16:27:21 +1 16:27:39 dwainberg: this DNT:0 def is broader in a way than the def of DNT:1. This seems odd 16:27:52 + +44.186.573.bbgg 16:28:01 Well, that doesn't really work. 16:28:07 "shouldn't it just be the strict opposite of DNT:1" 16:28:08 What if you need consent? 16:28:28 the EC function is different from "Not DNT:1" 16:28:31 I am quite certain that DNT:0 does not mean "I am not sending DNT:1" 16:28:31 no header effectively doesn't say DNT:1 16:28:45 actually, currently it means precisely "you have asked for, and got, an in-band exception from this user" 16:29:03 DNT:0 is not just "not DNT:1" 16:29:07 If a user wants to send "not DNT:1" then they can just not send any signal. 16:29:09 q? 16:29:27 + +1.425.985.bbhh 16:29:54 David, do you find the definition of DNT:0 too far reaching? 16:30:10 q+ 16:30:26 If DNT=1 meant "no personalized experience" then DNT=0 meaning "I want a personalized experience" makes sense. I agree with David that DNT=1 is ill-defined at this time, so its difficult to write text that is the exact opposite of the text for DNT=0 16:30:31 q? 16:30:36 q+ 16:30:46 aleecia want's to know if dwainberg is objecting or just finding the definition odd 16:30:58 proposal: When a user sends the DNT:0 signal, they are expressing a preference for a personalized experience. This signal indicates explicit consent for data collection, retention, processing, disclosure, and use by the recipient of this signal to provide a personalized experience for the user. This recommendation places no restrictions on data collected from requests received with DNT:0. 16:31:10 + +49.172.147.bbii 16:31:11 This text has been around for a long time. It sounds like DW doesn't object. Let's move on 16:31:28 Scope: "The Working Group will produce Recommendation-track specifications for a simple machine-readable preference expression mechanism ("Do Not Track") and technologies for selectively allowing or blocking tracking elements." 16:31:33 So long that *I forgot that I had written it*. 16:31:37 to tl: 'explicitly' not DNT:1 16:31:41 is DNT:0 and explicit opt-in? 16:31:46 yes 16:31:50 q? 16:31:58 ack BrendanIAB 16:32:01 Rigo, yes to my question? 16:32:09 yes 16:32:34 Thanks Rigo 16:32:57 ack Brooks 16:33:01 "if DNT:0 means "not DNT:1", then we go to a 2 state system" 16:33:04 BrendanIAB, the second part of that scope is referring to the Tracking Selection List deliverable (which we've decided not to continue with), but I agree that DNT:0 doesn't mean "not DNT:1" if we continue with our three-part state 16:33:34 +1 16:33:45 brooks doesn't think that DNT:0 would likely qualify as consent in the EU 16:34:26 hears we need a non-norm section 16:34:36 on "this may vary based on where you are" 16:34:40 q+ 16:34:53 ack rigo 16:34:56 is this a +1 to the earlier comment that we would need to note that this doesn't guarantee certain jurisdictional support? 16:35:03 I believe so 16:35:36 marc has joined #dnt 16:35:40 rigo refers brooks to presence of article 20 wp /cc robvaneijk 16:35:48 + +1.919.517.bbjj 16:35:58 AnnaLong has joined #dnt 16:36:26 pointing people to the text is a fine idea 16:36:36 Does anyone actually have an objection to this text, with a counter-proposal? 16:36:37 q+ 16:36:50 ack ifette 16:36:53 zakim, who is on the phone? 16:36:53 On the phone I see aleecia, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, efelten, fielding, dwainberg, [Mozilla], cblouch, Joanne, samsilberman, sue, Lee, [Apple], tl, Chris_IAB, vincent, WileyS, vinay, 16:36:56 ... tedleung, laurengelman, justin_, npdoty, ChrisPedigoOPA, dsriedel (muted), Matt_AppNexus, adrianba (muted), [Google], hwest, Marc, +aazz, FTC, KevinT, johnsimpson, Brooks, 16:36:56 ... damiano, susanisrael, +44.186.573.bbgg, +1.425.985.bbhh, +49.172.147.bbii, +1.919.517.bbjj 16:36:56 [Mozilla] has sidstamm 16:36:56 [Apple] has dsinger 16:37:08 kj_ has joined #dnt 16:37:26 agree with Ian's perspective 16:37:30 ksmith has joined #DNT 16:37:44 +1 to aleecia 16:37:48 ifette "in a case, it's more likely that the text that the user actually saw will be preferred over any text in the spec" 16:37:53 When a user sends the DNT:0 signal, they are expressing a preference for a personalized experience. This signal indicates explicit consent for data collection, retention, processing, disclosure, and use by the recipient of this signal to provide a personalized experience for the user. This recommendation places no restrictions on data collected from requests received with DNT:0. 16:37:59 any objections to fielding's new text? 16:38:13 zakim, bbjj is AnnaLong 16:38:13 +AnnaLong; got it 16:38:30 I have no objection to Roy's new suggestion. 16:38:34 + +385221bbkk 16:38:46 16:38:53 it should be explicit consent for 3rd party 16:38:54 q+ 16:38:56 I am not sure that the last sentence is true? Can you pass data to agents that received DNT:1, for example? 16:38:58 + 16:39:02 +1 to Roy's 16:39:04 ack dwainberg 16:39:15 Perhaps the entire document should have a rider with the statement "Check with your lawyer.". 16:39:22 +1 to that 16:39:23 propose to adopt roy's text, and add non-normative text to consult with your lawyer 16:39:24 +1 to Roy 16:39:26 +1 16:39:44 we went beyond Not Do Not Track a long time ago, when we made this a three-part state 16:39:45 zakim, bbkk is ksmith 16:39:45 +ksmith; got it 16:39:54 I was arguing in favor of this since the workshop in Princeton 16:40:03 DNT:0 indicates that a user does not seek the protections that DNT:1 offers. 16:40:05 it was added to indicate an in-band exception 16:40:30 I don't think we ever agreed to a tri-part state. Indeed, we have a poll open on that. 16:40:49 ? 16:40:50 aleecia to step dwainberg through DNT:0 rationale 16:40:50 dsigner - the poll is on the UA treatment, not on the tri-part state. 16:40:55 q? 16:41:01 dsinger, I thought we had agreement on DNT having three possible states, we have a poll open on whether UAs have to expose it 16:41:06 + 16:41:09 q+ 16:41:12 npdoty +1 16:41:30 ack brooks 16:41:31 Chapell has joined #DNT 16:41:54 David, isn't the poll over whether a browser MUST offer tri-part state? 16:41:58 We never agreed that DNT:0 was a general preference, and that is the essence of the poll question. DNT:0 was introduced to satisfy the need for in-band exception signalling. 16:42:09 you also need it for first parties 16:42:15 the signal is sent to any party 16:42:27 DNT:1 is not solely to third parties 16:42:35 brooks - should this text be qualified to 3rd parties? 16:42:39 No. 16:42:43 no 16:42:49 here are the first party compliance requirements: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html#first-party-compliance 16:42:58 how would it related to 1st parties in the US? 16:43:03 aleecia: no, DNT applies to 1st and 3rd parties, but has very few requirements for 1st parties, but there are requirements 16:43:14 Chris_IAB: it will give them permission 16:43:20 These questions apply to all parties. The compliance requirements are different for different parties, and small for first parties, but everyone has requirements. 16:43:27 q+ to suggest that the last sentence not make blanket statements, change to "This recommendation places little or no restrictions on data collected from requests received with DNT:0." 16:43:35 q? 16:43:37 Yeah, that first party compliance requirements language isn't good. No one has proposed good language to achieve what we have general consensus on should happen. 16:43:39 ack dsinger 16:43:39 dsinger, you wanted to suggest that the last sentence not make blanket statements, change to "This recommendation places little or no restrictions on data collected from requests 16:43:43 ... received with DNT:0." 16:44:06 Disagree. 16:44:11 Why? 16:44:16 :) 16:44:28 Why? -> picture 16:44:34 If I get DNT:0, don't see a need for prohibitions on data pass. 16:44:58 q- 16:44:58 I think dsinger's point is that when we have a user-granted exception now, users intentionally send DNT:0 to some but not others, and wouldn't want one third party to pass it to others that received DNT:1 16:45:02 AnnaLong has joined #dnt 16:45:35 I can't think of anything else in the spec that would put a limit on what DNT:0 recipients can do with data (outside of extra-standard requirements). 16:45:58 I disagree with David's concern. It is my impression that DNT:0 is precisely to disclaim all restriction. 16:46:54 To be more clear on my 1st party/3rd party stance - when I say no 1st party requirement I mean when no 3rd parties are involved - am I still missing something? 16:47:04 We cannot just re-open decided issues a year after the fact 16:47:11 I think David's concern is covered by the purpose -- that's why EU requires consent for each purpose. 16:47:17 tl, I think it is just lawyerish disclaiming (no or little) 16:47:25 Matt_AppNexus: don't think the distinction between 1st/3rd party is so clear, though I'm late to this discussion 16:47:27 matt from app nexus - is concerned about changing balance of power between 1st and 3rd parties 16:47:31 which is not worth our time 16:47:41 +1 to fielding, we could note that DNT:0 for an exception has a particular purpose 16:47:56 also concerned about ambiguity that dsinger is trying to address 16:48:17 q+ to address the variety of purposes 16:48:35 my concern is minor, that that sentence makes a blanket claim about the entire rest of the spec. I guess we can remember to re-visit the statement if it ever becomes true, but someone might think "I can stop reading if I get DNT:0", that's all. I hope we remember it's here, but we'd probably catch it in a final consistency check if it becomes untrue. 16:48:51 perhaps the spec should include a table, for each compliance provision, of how each provision applies to 1st parties, 3rd parties, and service providers -- to make it crystal clear 16:48:51 s/becomes true/becomes false/ !! 16:49:31 q- 16:50:04 This 16:50:13 aleecia +1 16:50:17 aleecia - hearing newcomers not having complete understanding of what is currently in the spec. 16:50:19 Proposed Table in Spec: Compliance Provision | How it Applies to 1st Parties | How it Applies to 3rd Parties | How it Applies to Service Providers 16:50:37 q? 16:50:42 Rigo, it was the gentleman from AppNexus 16:50:42 rigo, that was Matt with App Nexus 16:50:45 ...Otherwise, it's endless September in here 16:50:57 propose: add, including sharing data with others. 16:51:05 ok, ready to take a call with him and explain the concept 16:51:26 isn't that what "disclose" says? 16:51:28 +q 16:51:31 please mute if you are not speaking 16:51:33 we shouldn't let Aleecia make all those calls 16:51:34 I agree that "disclose" is already present 16:51:39 ack WileyS 16:51:51 +q 16:51:52 +1 shane 16:52:00 likes what Shane just said 16:52:00 because we have a 3-part state? 16:52:11 Shane + consent 16:52:18 Shane, that would be useless in EU 16:52:21 that is still a 3 part state 16:52:23 q? 16:52:50 ...except in Europe. 16:53:06 agree w/ Shane 16:53:14 WileyS proposed DNT:0 = not DNT:1 16:53:16 q+ 16:53:30 No, DNT:0 has nothing whatsoever in common with "unset" 16:54:05 I think I prefer fielding's language. 16:54:07 Agree on the EU problem - that makes this harder. Hence my belief that we need more than one compliance standard. 16:54:17 aleecia reiterates need for 3 part state 16:54:49 -sue 16:54:57 +1 to adoption 16:54:59 prefer fielding's language and three-part state 16:55:05 We're agreeing with Roy's proposal? If so, yes! 16:55:09 +1 to adopt 16:55:10 yes 16:55:29 "Check with your lawyer." 16:55:33 There, done. 16:55:34 resolution: adopt fielding's text and add non-normative "check with your lawyer" text 16:55:34 AGREED: we adopt Roy's text 16:55:34 +sue 16:55:42 "this protocol does not define what consititutes explicit consent in any jurisdiction; check with your lawyer" 16:55:53 action: rigo to draft non-normative text to "check with your lawyer" regarding consent and DNT:0 16:55:53 Created ACTION-250 - Draft non-normative text to "check with your lawyer" regarding consent and DNT:0 [on Rigo Wenning - due 2012-09-12]. 16:56:11 q+ 16:56:13 All hail dsinger. 16:56:17 rigo just supplied text for action-250 16:56:26 ack Chris_IAB 16:56:26 q? 16:56:44 q- 16:57:39 Chris_IAB proposes that new proposals explicitly call out how they apply to 1st, 3rd parties and service providers. 16:58:19 WileyS, we should perhaps have a call so that I explain you where the purpose identification is. The purpose identification lies in fact in the context of the request because we assume the user knows what she does 16:58:22 -[Google] 16:58:51 q? 16:58:57 ack Brooks 16:59:22 -samsilberman 16:59:24 It is meant to. 16:59:43 Rigo, agree with this wrinkle and why you'd push for DNT=0 equallying explicit consent. 16:59:46 We do think that. That is the point. 17:00:18 DNT:0 is there to provide explicit consent. That is a decided issue, and not elegible to be reopened. 17:00:19 The explicit consent comes when the user makes the configuration to send DNT:0 17:00:26 Rigo speaking 17:00:32 Yes, you can - because you're agreeing to a practice not to a specific party 17:00:41 -sue 17:00:44 +q 17:00:53 cOlsen has joined #dnt 17:00:54 I think what Brooks is mentioning is informed consent, not explicit consent 17:01:01 ack WileyS 17:01:13 Brooks still have an issue with explicit consent 17:01:27 in some cases it will be to a particular party, like when you've granted a user-granted exception 17:01:43 or I might configure a list to send DNT:0 to parties I know and trust 17:01:48 WileyS it's not explicit consent between parties, but explicit consent to a practice 17:02:05 s/WileyS it's/WileyS: it's/ 17:02:27 interesting if DNT:0 = "implicit consent", then it would have to be set by the user, right? Then shouldn't DNT:1 also have the same, user-set, requirement? (vs. default on) 17:02:37 I honestly don't think that will be a problem in the EU given that the EU commissioner explicitly asked for it as a solution to popups at every site. 17:02:50 for example, if there were a UA that set DNT:0 by default, would everyone be ok with that? 17:03:02 I can do it 17:03:09 yes, Roy's text uses the words "explicit consent" which is a term of art used in legislation, which is the concern; we just need a note that we haven't tried to make this protocol satisfy every jurisdiction's definition of explicit consent 17:03:16 action-250: "this protocol does not define what consititutes explicit consent in any jurisdiction; check with your lawyer" 17:03:16 ACTION-250 Draft non-normative text to "check with your lawyer" regarding consent and DNT:0 notes added 17:03:16 hwest to add text to the compliance doc 17:03:20 close action-250 17:03:20 ACTION-250 Draft non-normative text to "check with your lawyer" regarding consent and DNT:0 closed 17:03:22 agenda? 17:03:42 zakim, who is making noise? 17:03:53 dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: aleecia (68%), susanisrael (28%) 17:03:54 issue-119? 17:03:54 ISSUE-119 -- Specify "absolutely not tracking" -- open 17:03:54 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/119 17:03:59 jmayer has joined #dnt 17:04:00 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Feb/0362.html 17:04:08 action: west to add DNT:0 definition and non-normative text to Compliance 17:04:08 Created ACTION-251 - Add DNT:0 definition and non-normative text to Compliance [on Heather West - due 2012-09-12]. 17:04:21 A party may claim that it is not tracking, if it 17:04:21 1) only collects identifying data which is strictly necessary to answer 17:04:23 the user's HTTP request and to fulfil it's contractual obligation 17:04:24 towards the user 17:04:26 2) does not send, collect or check for unique identifiers 17:04:27 3) does not correlate the data of a DNT HTTP request with any other data 17:04:27 4) deletes the identifying data as soon as the original purpose is fulfilled 17:05:04 + +1.202.684.bbll 17:05:17 Whose text it this? 17:05:19 Zakim, bbll is jmayer 17:05:19 +jmayer; got it 17:05:28 tl, this is from Ninja 17:05:39 q+ 17:05:39 Has it been on the list? 17:05:42 q- 17:05:44 this is the DuckDuckGo scenario 17:05:50 Aah, right. 17:06:01 This seems weak to me. 17:06:14 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Feb/0403.html 17:06:32 A party may claim that it is not tracking if 17:06:33 1) the party does not retain data from requests in a form 17:06:34 that might identify a user except as necessary to fulfill that 17:06:36 user's intention (e.g., credit card billing data is necessary 17:06:37 if the user is making a purchase) or for the limited purposes 17:06:39 of access security, fraud prevention, or audit controls; 17:06:40 2) when user-identifying data is retained for purposes other 17:06:42 than to fulfill the user's intention, the party maintains 17:06:43 strict confidentiality of that data and only retains 17:06:45 that data for a limited duration that is no longer than is 17:06:46 necessary to accomplish that purpose, thereafter destroying 17:06:48 or otherwise clearing the user-identifying data; and, 17:06:48 This seems narrow to me - while this may not be tracking there are many other activities (such as Permitted Uses) that would not be considered tracking either. 17:06:49 3) the party does not combine or correlate collected 17:06:51 user-identifying data with any other data obtained from prior 17:06:52 requests, user-identifying profiles, or data obtained from 17:06:54 third parties unless specifically directed to do so by the user 17:06:55 (e.g., when a user initiates a login request) or for the limited 17:06:57 purposes of inspection for access security, fraud prevention, 17:06:59 or audit controls. 17:07:05 tl, fun is that ixquick who has a privacy seal from ULD is not fulfilling those requirements... 17:07:19 That comment was for Ninja's proposal 17:07:23 I do not think that Roy's text meets the goal for this text. 17:07:38 I think we could have a definition that uses existing language around permitted uses 17:07:41 -Lee 17:07:59 like, "absolutely not tracking" is "only the security and short-term logging permitted uses" 17:08:05 -dsriedel 17:08:15 suegl has joined #dnt 17:08:16 q? 17:08:16 q+ 17:08:18 q+ 17:08:23 ack npdoty 17:08:54 npdoty: can we reformulate this in terms of permitted uses? 17:08:58 Nick, doesn't feel appropriate to create a gradiant outcome (not tracking vs. absolutely not tracking) 17:09:07 ack dwainberg 17:09:07 tl, I don't think it was intended to match the goal of Ninja's text 17:09:47 npdoty: propose using existing terminology around permitted uses rather than inventing new phrasing 17:09:59 dwainberg: why is this phrased as not "Tracking" since we are avoiding the word tracking 17:10:05 ... like a definition "does not use any permitted uses except for security and short-term" 17:10:32 q+ wonders if we can roll this into the next question "when its practices fall strictly outside the definition of tracking given in the scope of this specification" 17:10:37 If you define something as 'not tracking', then anything else 'is tracking'? 17:10:46 q+ 17:10:46 TSV = "N" 17:10:47 dwainberg: this seems problematic, we should drop it 17:10:58 we could call those "Privacy Champions" :) 17:11:09 short of PC 17:11:11 +1 to fielding, refer to the specific signal rather than a term for us to fight over 17:11:18 q+ to wonder if we can roll this into the next question "when its practices fall strictly outside the definition of tracking given in the scope of this specification" 17:11:49 apart from the name it's still a problem 17:11:59 I mean, that is the name ;-) 17:12:01 KevinT1 has joined #dnt 17:12:05 in trying to find consensus, it's proven very difficult (likely impossible) to fulfill regional requirements (legal, regulatory and other requirements) for a DNT header mechanism. So how about we concentrate on the technical spec in this group, then bifurcate the compliance spec into multiple documents, that are regionally focused to solve regional issues? 17:12:19 q? 17:12:24 otherwise, aren't we trying to boil the ocean here? 17:12:26 ack ChrisPedigoOPA 17:12:30 or, "no personal data retained" 17:13:28 tl has joined #dnt 17:13:30 ChrisPedigoOPA: concerned about both texts, would prefer npdoty's approach, going to create legal liability for small entities 17:13:39 +q to explain what this is for. 17:13:50 I think Chris is hung up by transforming a positive statement into a negative one 17:13:58 ack tl 17:13:58 tl, you wanted to explain what this is for. 17:14:05 +1 Rigo 17:14:17 it would be requirements for those who choose to explicitly state an additional level, which would of course be optional 17:14:34 Optional and likely rare 17:14:58 tl: this is for websites that want to go way over and above on privacy - likely to be few of these; not aimed at "normal" websites 17:15:19 Let's just have a 17:15:24 "really totally not tracking" doesn't work for me :-) 17:15:32 ... "+" response that says "we go beyond DNT." 17:15:39 A for anonymous? 17:15:44 total privacy 17:15:45 That's what this is, David 17:15:46 and then let companies explain what they mean elsewhere. 17:15:54 +1 to fielding 17:15:55 Tom, aren't you saying then, in essence, that a 3-state system doesn't serve all? 17:15:55 But we shouldn't try to define it. 17:16:16 Disagree with this approach - go start up a separate company/privacy seal and sell this there. Not needed in this standard. 17:16:23 q? 17:16:23 we currently have TSV = "N"? 17:16:26 ack dsinger 17:16:26 dsinger, you wanted to wonder if we can roll this into the next question "when its practices fall strictly outside the definition of tracking given in the scope of this 17:16:29 ... specification" 17:16:44 q+ 17:17:22 dsinger: by listing out the things that a super privacy site won't do, we're indirectly defining tracking 17:17:39 We're now considering yet another state? You're either DNT compliant or DNT SUPER compliant? 17:17:58 q? 17:18:01 ack rigo 17:18:04 and then we'll need super-duper extra compliant. 17:18:07 Shane, agreed. In an effort to create a super-privacy level, it seems that we create liability for sites that don't track 17:18:23 Why do you think there's liability here? 17:18:27 ChrisPedigoOPA: What liability? 17:18:29 WileyS, the TSV currently has 6 listed values, we are discussing one of them here 17:18:54 If a company is not SUPER compliant and only compliant, I definitely see liability. 17:19:00 The few companies on the planet that do this will be happy. The rest of companies will ignore this. 17:19:13 does "tracking" mean "serving customized and personalized content"? 17:19:13 We're taking an already overly complex structure and making it more complex - argh. 17:19:17 WileyS: Why? They aren't doing something they haven't promised to do? 17:19:28 q+ 17:19:39 my site wants to say that I don't need the exceptions in the standard and my site doesn't share data with anyone, so I don't track. But, now this new language adds another layer of complexity and liability 17:19:48 ack dwainberg 17:20:00 Aleecia - I disagree and feel that's short sighted. Scope creep will create the temptation for advocates to try to push all companies to "Super Compliance". 17:20:10 -Marc 17:20:13 WileyS, the TSV is a claim by the server of what the server does -- it does not say anything more than what the server wants to say. 17:20:21 dwainberg: there are 2 issues. 1) is there a way for servers to say that DNT doesn't apply 2) should we define what that means 17:20:22 Aleecia - also, if its only a few companies, let them go and do their own thing and not burden this standard. 17:20:41 For entities that want the gold star, they are certainly free to indicate that "they go beyond the requirements of DNT because of X, Y, Z.. 17:20:41 That would not address my concerns. 17:20:53 So why do we need to add this to the spac 17:20:55 -jmayer 17:20:57 spec? 17:21:08 aleecia: dont' want to create the impression that companies that implement DNT are bad at privacy 17:21:10 Example - only collects identifying data which is strictly necessary to answer the user's HTTP request and to fulfill it's contractual obligation towards the user. How do you define "strictly necessary"??? 17:21:11 ChrisPedigoOPA, I think what we're talking about is a way to say that you're not using the permitted uses 17:21:19 "DNT" should not be synonymous with "privacy" (that's conflating) 17:21:25 +jmayer 17:21:26 how do you define "contractual obligations"?? 17:21:36 suggest adding non-normative text that says this will only apply to a small number companies 17:22:02 If its in the standard then it applies to the world 17:22:15 ChrisPedigoOPA, strike "contractual obligations" and the definition is fine 17:22:21 q+ 17:22:28 what is strictly necessary? 17:22:35 aleecia: likes npdoty's proposal to reframe in terms of permitted uses 17:22:46 ack fielding 17:23:05 -[Mozilla] 17:23:07 +1 to Roy's suggestion 17:23:08 +1 fielding 17:23:09 sidstamm has left #dnt 17:23:13 -1 17:23:17 fielding: can we change TSV=N to TSV=A in the TPE? 17:23:17 I'm totally okay with "anonymous" 17:23:33 I'm concerned that anon means more than this is 17:23:34 Neither is accurate, but one causes fewer complaints... 17:24:02 couldn't you have a credentialed access - non anonymous, but not log anything - not tracking? 17:24:09 +1 to Anonymous over "Not Tracking" but agree with Aleecia this will have different definitions to many 17:24:19 tlr has joined #dnt 17:24:21 action: doty to propose defining formerly-known-as absolutely-not-tracking via permitted uses 17:24:21 Created ACTION-252 - Propose defining formerly-known-as absolutely-not-tracking via permitted uses [on Nick Doty - due 2012-09-12]. 17:24:56 action: wainberg to propose dropping any tracking status value for None/Anonymous 17:24:57 Created ACTION-253 - Propose dropping any tracking status value for None/Anonymous [on David Wainberg - due 2012-09-12]. 17:25:34 Could you name one of those companies in our Membership? 17:26:01 do we need something included in the spec for only a few companies? 17:26:05 I don't think anonymous works 17:26:09 aleecia: for the small number of companies, not for general use, could clarify that in non-normative text 17:26:39 By small number - are we suggesting 2 or 3 companies in the world? 17:27:13 schunter has joined #dnt 17:27:16 q? 17:27:57 agree with david 17:27:57 -dwainberg 17:27:59 -ChrisPedigoOPA 17:28:03 -hwest 17:28:04 -FTC 17:28:05 -Joanne 17:28:06 -BrendanIAB? 17:28:06 -KevinT 17:28:06 -efelten 17:28:07 -justin_ 17:28:07 -laurengelman 17:28:09 -Matt_AppNexus 17:28:09 efelten has left #dnt 17:28:11 -Brooks 17:28:13 -vincent 17:28:15 -damiano 17:28:17 -vinay 17:28:19 -aleecia 17:28:22 -tl 17:28:24 - +44.186.573.bbgg 17:28:25 -tedleung 17:28:28 - +1.425.985.bbhh 17:28:30 -[Apple] 17:28:31 -fielding 17:28:33 -johnsimpson 17:28:35 -cblouch 17:28:37 -Chris_IAB 17:28:39 Zakim, list attendees 17:28:39 -WileyS 17:28:42 As of this point the attendees have been +1.408.674.aaaa, aleecia, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, +1.609.258.aabb, efelten, +1.510.859.aacc, npdoty, +1.813.358.aadd, +1.714.852.aaee, fielding, 17:28:44 ... +1.646.801.aaff, dwainberg, sidstamm, +1.703.265.aagg, +1.813.358.aahh, +1.415.520.aaii, +1.781.472.aajj, Joanne, +1.425.269.aakk, +1.510.501.aall, dsinger, cblouch, 17:28:47 ... samsilberman, +1.206.664.aamm, +1.609.981.aann, tedleung, +1.212.380.aaoo, vincent, +1.408.349.aapp, +1.917.934.aaqq, vinay, Chris_IAB, +1.202.637.aarr, +1.202.744.aass, 17:28:51 ... justin_, +49.721.83.aatt, +1.813.358.aauu, dsriedel, +1.646.827.aavv, ChrisPedigoOPA, +1.678.492.aaww, [Google], adrianba, +1.202.346.aaxx, +1.202.835.aayy, +aazz, Marc, 17:28:53 ... +1.202.326.bbaa, +1.415.520.bbbb, +1.310.292.bbcc, johnsimpson, KevinT, Matt_AppNexus, tl, Lee, +1.678.580.bbdd, hwest, FTC, sue, WileyS, Brooks, laurengelman, +1.813.358.bbee, 17:28:56 ... damiano, +1.215.286.bbff, susanisrael, +44.186.573.bbgg, +1.425.985.bbhh, +49.172.147.bbii, +1.919.517.bbjj, AnnaLong, +385221bbkk, ksmith, +1.202.684.bbll, jmayer 17:29:00 - +49.172.147.bbii 17:29:00 johnsimpson has left #dnt 17:29:06 -Rigo 17:29:09 -jmayer 17:29:10 -AnnaLong 17:29:16 - +aazz 17:29:17 -susanisrael 17:29:23 -adrianba 17:30:32 rigo has left #dnt 17:31:16 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:31:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/09/05-dnt-minutes.html npdoty 17:31:38 KevinT1 has left #dnt 17:44:10 -ksmith 17:45:18 ksmith has left #DNT 17:49:10 disconnecting the lone participant, npdoty, in T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM 17:49:12 T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended 17:49:12 Attendees were +1.408.674.aaaa, aleecia, Rigo, BrendanIAB?, +1.609.258.aabb, efelten, +1.510.859.aacc, npdoty, +1.813.358.aadd, +1.714.852.aaee, fielding, +1.646.801.aaff, 17:49:12 ... dwainberg, sidstamm, +1.703.265.aagg, +1.813.358.aahh, +1.415.520.aaii, +1.781.472.aajj, Joanne, +1.425.269.aakk, +1.510.501.aall, dsinger, cblouch, samsilberman, 17:49:14 ... +1.206.664.aamm, +1.609.981.aann, tedleung, +1.212.380.aaoo, vincent, +1.408.349.aapp, +1.917.934.aaqq, vinay, Chris_IAB, +1.202.637.aarr, +1.202.744.aass, justin_, 17:49:16 ... +49.721.83.aatt, +1.813.358.aauu, dsriedel, +1.646.827.aavv, ChrisPedigoOPA, +1.678.492.aaww, [Google], adrianba, +1.202.346.aaxx, +1.202.835.aayy, +aazz, Marc, 17:49:20 ... +1.202.326.bbaa, +1.415.520.bbbb, +1.310.292.bbcc, johnsimpson, KevinT, Matt_AppNexus, tl, Lee, +1.678.580.bbdd, hwest, FTC, sue, WileyS, Brooks, laurengelman, +1.813.358.bbee, 17:49:23 ... damiano, +1.215.286.bbff, susanisrael, +44.186.573.bbgg, +1.425.985.bbhh, +49.172.147.bbii, +1.919.517.bbjj, AnnaLong, +385221bbkk, ksmith, +1.202.684.bbll, jmayer 18:14:20 ifette_ has joined #dnt 19:00:11 schunter1 has joined #dnt