- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:26:47 -0400
- To: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
- CC: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <525EBE47.2010700@w3.org>
+1. I have no question that Carl is operating wearing his "Chair" hat -
not wearing a "company" hat.
Jeff
On 10/16/2013 12:06 PM, Justin Brookman wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> Please do not let this discussion get personal! I understand that you
> have doubts about whether industry can meaningfully self-regulate
> through W3C (or otherwise). The working group as a whole has
> expressed a preference to continue to try however, and Carl is just
> seeking input on how to reform the group's efforts to be as effective
> and efficient as possible. I know consumer groups as a whole have
> been frustrated by this process, but I hope you (and others) will
> continue to substantively participate as the group moves forward. But
> I recognize that you are going to explore other avenues to address
> online data collection practices as well. Those (and parallel efforts
> by DAA) may prove more or less effective; only time will tell!
>
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Jeffrey Chester
> <jeff@democraticmedia.org <mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>> wrote:
>
>> Carl
>>
>> Given Adobe's own role in the expansion of data collection, I am
>> disappointed-- but not surprised-- that you only want so-called good
>> news. The group should honestly confront its conflict of interests,
>> and explore what new approaches regarding ethical decision-making
>> should be adopted.
>>
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeffrey Chester
>> Center for Digital Democracy
>> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
>> Washington, DC 20009
>> www.democraticmedia.org <http://www.democraticmedia.org/>
>> www.digitalads.org <http://www.digitalads.org/>
>> 202-986-2220
>>
>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Carl Cargill wrote:
>>
>>> Jeffery –
>>> While your comment in a mail format is accepted, please keep in mind
>>> that the discussion today is focused on*positive*comments that help
>>> the group to move forward and meet its charter objectives, not
>>> disputatious responses to other comments.
>>> I await your positive contribution on how the group can succeed with
>>> the framework of its remit.
>>> Thank you –
>>> Carl Cargill
>>> Carl Cargill
>>> Principal Scientist, Standards
>>> Adobe Systems
>>> Cargill@adobe.com <mailto:Cargill@adobe.com>
>>> Office: +1 541 488 0040
>>> Mobile: +1 650 759 9803
>>> @AdobeStandards
>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/standards
>>> *From:*Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org
>>> <http://democraticmedia.org>]
>>> *Sent:*Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:14 AM
>>> *To:*SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
>>> *Cc:*Carl Cargill; Thomas Schauf; Mike Zaneis; Jack L. Hobaugh Jr;
>>> public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
>>> (public-tracking@w3.org
>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>);team-tracking-chairs@w3.org
>>> <mailto:team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>(team-tracking-chairs@w3.org
>>> <mailto:team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>)
>>> *Subject:*Re: TPWG Agenda for the October 16 call (V02)
>>> The FTC has called for privacy legislation, as has the Obama
>>> Administration. The EU, as we all know, is currently debating new
>>> regulations. It's not a surprise that the industry--here at the WC3
>>> and through its self-regulatory regimes--cannot establish technical
>>> safeguards. Most companies and the members of the trade
>>> associations are involved in "data maximization" strategies, with
>>> dramatic expansion of data collection on individuals, social groups,
>>> and communities. What's going on is deeply disturbing.
>>> Self-regulation is not even a band-aid to what's been unleashed via
>>> hyper geo-location, social marketing, and expanded data broker
>>> partnership targeting, etc.
>>> It would be important for the WC3 leadership to speak out about why
>>> its DNT initiative has failed. In my view it's because many of its
>>> corporate members and funders have a serious conflict of interest
>>> regarding privacy. The very companies (with few exceptions) tasked
>>> to protect users are the ones engaged in gathering their data.
>>> I hope Tim Berners-Lee will engage in some soul-searching, and
>>> address why this process has been a failure. The debate unleashed
>>> by the Snowden revelations should be sufficient for him to take a
>>> strong public position about why more needs to be done to protect
>>> Internet privacy.
>>> I won't be on the calls for the next 3 weeks, due to privacy related
>>> work.
>>> Jeff
>>> Center for Digital Democracy
>>> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
>>> Washington, DC 20009
>>> www.democraticmedia.org <http://www.democraticmedia.org/>
>>> www.digitalads.org <http://www.digitalads.org/>
>>> 202-986-2220
>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 8:49 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Regrets for this call, on a plane.
>>> Here is my input to the request for clarification on the poll response.
>>> I voted to continue the TPE only because it's become clear that the
>>> compliance issues go far beyond the technical scope that W3C is best
>>> focused on, and self-regulation will address it, once there is an
>>> agreed signal definition (the only necessary technical work). This
>>> was my position at the start of the group, and it has only been
>>> strengthened through the process.
>>> In the US, the FTC and other position papers clearly called for
>>> reasonable industry (not exclusively by the W3C) action on commonly
>>> accepted business practices ("acceptable uses"), while preserving
>>> the freedom for technical innovation on solutions to that goal. The
>>> compliance work in TPWG, though useful as a dialog (and potentially
>>> as a W3C Note) has only served to harden the lines between the
>>> stakeholders. We need time and implementation/user experience to
>>> address the tougher, socio-political issues of what privacy (and
>>> tracking as a facet of it) means, and I am not sure there is a
>>> technical solution to that (or a need for one).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Bryan Sullivan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 11:13 PM, "Carl Cargill" <cargill@adobe.com
>>> <mailto:cargill@adobe.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thomas –
>>> You have made the point well – the discussion tomorrow is exactly
>>> focused on “… a discussion as a follow up to the results of the poll
>>> and taking them into account.” We are asking all of those that
>>> voted (43 people) to present their views on why they voted as they
>>> did, and then – time permitting, following that with comments from
>>> those that did not vote. We are trying to move towards
>>> a*positive*resolution of the issues upon which we poled the
>>> membership. In this case there were five “majority decisions” – each
>>> of the questions had a majority (as well as a minority) vote. As
>>> with any poll, however, the results to the questions require
>>> discussion and interpretation – and that’s what we’re affording the
>>> members a chance to have tomorrow.
>>> As I said in my earlier messages, please read the agenda, rather
>>> than the commentary on the agenda. The agenda is very clear that “…
>>> the TPWG Chairs and W3C Management team feel that there is a desire
>>> to move forward, but we also feel is in necessary to spend some
>>> effort both improving or changing the plan; and working with the WG
>>> to build confidence in the plan. *To that end, we will be
>>> structuring the discussion to allow everyone on the call a chance to
>>> provide constructive suggestions to move the group forward*. The
>>> Chairs will use this input to re-think the plan and process. We
>>> want to have the benefit of this dialog before we sit down with the
>>> Director to review the poll results.” (Emphasis mine.)
>>> I note that you did take time to respond to the poll, so I look
>>> forward to your constructive comments to help the chairs and
>>> committee move forward and succeed during the in the session tomorrow.
>>> Carl
>>> Carl Cargill
>>> Principal Scientist, Standards
>>> Adobe Systems
>>> Cargill@adobe.com <mailto:Cargill@adobe.com>
>>> Office: +1 541 488 0040
>>> Mobile: +1 650 759 9803
>>> @AdobeStandards
>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/standards
>>> *From:*Thomas Schauf [mailto:schauf@bvdw.org]
>>> *Sent:*Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:47 PM
>>> *To:*Carl Cargill; Mike Zaneis
>>> *Cc:*Jack L. Hobaugh Jr;public-tracking@w3.org
>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>(public-tracking@w3.org
>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>);team-tracking-chairs@w3.org
>>> <mailto:team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>(team-tracking-chairs@w3.org
>>> <mailto:team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>)
>>> *Subject:*Re: TPWG Agenda for the October 16 call (V02)
>>> Dear all,
>>> I am a bit confused and share theview,that the resultsof
>>> the pollarenot consideredup to now.If they never will be, whythenthe
>>> whole exercise? I understood it as a decsion on the direction of
>>> this working Group.
>>> As an employeeof an association, I learnedthatthemajority decisions,
>>> expressing the members will, must be respectedin the work-if it
>>> isnotcase in here, Iam very irritated and see decicits in the
>>> democratic self-understanding of this grouporsomeofits protagonists.
>>> So at least, I expect a discussion as a follow up to the results of
>>> the poll and taking them into account.
>>> Regards,
>>> Thomas
>>> Thomas Schauf
>>> Head of European & International Affairs
>>>
>>> Bundesverband Digitale Wirtschaft (BVDW) e.V.
>>> Berliner Allee 57
>>> D-40212 Düsseldorf
>>> Präsident: Matthias Ehrlich
>>> Vizepräsidenten: Christoph N. von Dellingshausen, Harald R.
>>> Fortmann, Achim Himmelreich, Ulrich Kramer, Burkhard Leimbrock
>>> Geschäftsführer: Tanja Feller, Harald Kratel
>>> Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, VR 8258
>>>
>>> sent via Mobile.
>>> *Von:* Mike Zaneis
>>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2013 04:12
>>> *An:* Carl Cargill
>>> *Cc:* Jack L. Hobaugh Jr,public-tracking@w3.org
>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>(public-tracking@w3.org
>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>),team-tracking-chairs@w3.org
>>> <mailto:team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>(team-tracking-chairs@w3.org
>>> <mailto:team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>), Carl Cargill
>>> The group has not yet discussed the poll and the Chairs have not yet
>>> issued a decision on how to proceed, but you are already saying
>>> definitively that we won't change the charter (necessary in order to
>>> make Option 4 possible) and we won't stop the work of the group
>>> (Option 5), then why were those options listed in the poll?
>>>
>>> Mike Zaneis
>>> SVP & General Counsel, IAB
>>> (202) 253-1466
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 10:04 PM, "Carl Cargill" <cargill@adobe.com
>>> <mailto:cargill@adobe.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mike,
>>> With due respect, you seem to have adopted a very adversarial
>>> approach to tomorrow. To respond to your question of “then isn’t
>>> tomorrow’s call just window dressing for a predetermined
>>> decision by the W3C to disregard the will of the Working Group
>>> participants…” the short answer is “No, it’s not”.
>>> The full quote from my response to Jack – from which you
>>> abstracted part - was “I do not believe that the issues will
>>> either expand or contract with the poll results – the only thing
>>> that will change (in probability, given the nature of the group)
>>> will be a structuring and ordering of the issues.” In the
>>> context in which the answer was given was the request for yet
>>> another delay before we had a deadline for submissions. That was
>>> rejected.
>>> Let me try to make the intent of tomorrow clear. The chairs are
>>> looking for*positive and or creative*ways of moving the work of
>>> the group forward.
>>> My original agenda contains the following:
>>> Given this background, the TPWG Chairs and W3C Management team
>>> feel that there is a desire to move forward,*but we also feel is
>>> in necessary to spend some effort both improving or changing the
>>> plan;*and working with the WG to build confidence in the plan.
>>> To that end, we will be structuring the discussion to allow
>>> everyone on the call a chance to provide constructive
>>> suggestions to move the group forward. The Chairs will use this
>>> input to re-think the plan and process. We want to have the
>>> benefit of this dialog before we sit down with the Director to
>>> review the poll results. (The emphasis is mine and it is added.)
>>> Rather than tie up cycles responding to my response to Jack, I’d
>>> prefer that you look at the primary document rather than a
>>> derivative document. Tomorrow we are looking for positive
>>> suggestions on how to make this group succeed. We will not
>>> change the charter. Given the hard fact of the charter, and
>>> given the hard need to have standardization process that is
>>> predicated upon the ability to achieve consensus, and given the
>>> results of the poll, we have work to do.
>>> I am hoping that you will contribute tomorrow with a suggestion
>>> on how to meet these various goals in a cooperative environment.
>>> Since we will be using response list as the basis of the queue,
>>> I am not sure that we will get to you (even if others don’t use
>>> their three minutes) since we’ve committed to those who voted as
>>> having preference in the queue.
>>> Carl
>>> Carl Cargill
>>> Principal Scientist, Standards
>>> Adobe Systems
>>> Cargill@adobe.com <mailto:Cargill@adobe.com>
>>> Office: +1 541 488 0040
>>> Mobile: +1 650 759 9803
>>> @AdobeStandards
>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/standards
>>> *From:*Mike Zaneis [mailto:mike@iab.net]
>>> *Sent:*Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:38 PM
>>> *To:*Carl Cargill; Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
>>> *Cc:*public-tracking@w3.org
>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>(public-tracking@w3.org
>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>);team-tracking-chairs@w3.org
>>> <mailto:team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>(team-tracking-chairs@w3.org
>>> <mailto:team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>)
>>> *Subject:*RE: TPWG Agenda for the October 16 call (V02)
>>> Carl,
>>> If, as you say, “the only thing that will change (in
>>> probability, given the nature of the group) will be a
>>> structuring and ordering of the issues”, then do we even need
>>> tomorrow’s call? If the group voted that they did not support
>>> the current process, but the Chairs are telling us that the only
>>> thing that is going to change is a rearranging of the deck
>>> chairs, with no change to the actual process, then isn’t
>>> tomorrow’s call just window dressing for a predetermined
>>> decision by the W3C to disregard the will of the Working Group
>>> participants?
>>> Further to the apparent predetermination of the Chairs, in the
>>> same statement you disregarded Options 4 or 5 of the poll when
>>> you state that, “(t)he need to complete both specifications has
>>> not gone away”.
>>> If this has already been determined then why are we wasting an
>>> entire week discussing the options? Or am my missing something
>>> fundamental in your explanation?
>>> Mike Zaneis
>>> SVP & General Counsel
>>> Interactive Advertising Bureau
>>> (202) 253-1466
>>> Follow me on Twitter @mikezaneis
>>> *From:*Carl Cargill [mailto:cargill@adobe.com]
>>> *Sent:*Tuesday, October 15, 2013 6:16 PM
>>> *To:*Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
>>> *Cc:*public-tracking@w3.org
>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>(public-tracking@w3.org
>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>); Carl
>>> Cargill;team-tracking-chairs@w3.org
>>> <mailto:team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>(team-tracking-chairs@w3.org
>>> <mailto:team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>)
>>> *Subject:*RE: TPWG Agenda for the October 16 call (V02)
>>> Jack –
>>> Thank you for the mail of this morning.
>>> I have considered your request, and have discussed it with
>>> another chair and members of the team. Unfortunately, because
>>> we are attempting to minimize the time it takes to move to
>>> completion, I am going to have to respond that the due date
>>> suffer no further delays. (Please note that we have already, at
>>> your request, extended it two weeks.)
>>> The additional supporting material is absolutely necessary for
>>> us (as chairs and as a group) as we look at the results of the
>>> poll and what changes may be necessary. It is our (the chairs)
>>> basic material for schedule consideration and comment
>>> resolution. The need to complete both specifications has not
>>> gone away – nor have the substantive comments are relevant to
>>> the issues at hand. I do not believe that the issues will either
>>> expand or contract with the poll results – the only thing that
>>> will change (in probability, given the nature of the group) will
>>> be a structuring and ordering of the issues. The issues – and
>>> the comments supporting them – should remain the both identical
>>> and valid.
>>> With respect to your concerns about the volunteer participants –
>>> I point out that the chairs too fall in that category, and that
>>> we too are subject to competing priorities and also are
>>> attempting to allocate our resources. Hence, the willingness to
>>> devote an entire session in discussion of the issues raised in
>>> the poll and a stock-taking of how the members of the would like
>>> to improve the activities to be more efficient in meeting the
>>> goals of the charter – and reduce, ultimately, the time
>>> necessary to complete.
>>> I hope that this note answers your request and satisfies you
>>> with the reason for not extending the deadline. I note that you
>>> are scheduled for a slot tomorrow, and look forward to hearing
>>> your suggestions on a way forward.
>>> Carl
>>> Carl Cargill
>>> Principal Scientist, Standards
>>> Adobe Systems
>>> Cargill@adobe.com <mailto:Cargill@adobe.com>
>>> Office: +1 541 488 0040
>>> Mobile: +1 650 759 9803
>>> @AdobeStandards
>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/standards
>>> *From:*Jack L. Hobaugh Jr [mailto:jack@networkadvertising.org]
>>> *Sent:*Tuesday, October 15, 2013 7:45 AM
>>> *To:*Carl Cargill
>>> *Cc:*public-tracking@w3.org
>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>(public-tracking@w3.org
>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)
>>> *Subject:*Re: TPWG Agenda for the October 16 call (V02)
>>> Good Morning Carl,
>>> Thank you for providing the modified agenda for Wednesday, the
>>> TPWG Chairs' initial thoughts on the poll results, and the rules
>>> for Wednesday's call.
>>> With so much up in the air, I respectfully request the TPWG
>>> Chairs' to please consider suspending at least the October 16
>>> due date for providing additional material against the newly
>>> submitted issues. Providing substantive additional material
>>> requires significant resources from participants in the TPWG and
>>> others within their organizations. As you can imagine, it is
>>> difficult to make responding to the October 16 deadline a top
>>> priority after the poll has indicated the current path forward
>>> will at least be modified. This very real resource issue and
>>> concern reflects the views of many of the volunteer participants
>>> in the TPWG from all sides of the discussion who have competing
>>> priorities and are seeking to efficiently allocate scarce resources.
>>> The TPWG Chairs' timely consideration of suspending the October
>>> 16 deadline would be greatly appreciated.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Jack
>>> *Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
>>> *Network Advertising Initiative | Counsel & Senior Director of
>>> Technology
>>> 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
>>> P: 202-347-5341| jack@networkadvertising.org
>>> <mailto:jack@networkadvertising.org>
>>>
>>> On Oct 13, 2013, at 10:01 PM, Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com
>>> <mailto:cargill@adobe.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> All -
>>>
>>> Below is the modified agenda for next Wednesday, 16 October 2013.
>>>
>>> The session will be focused on the recently completed poll and
>>> is intended to help the chairs, management team, and the
>>> committee more thoroughly understand and appreciate the results.
>>>
>>> It is intended to be a brainstorming session in which comments
>>> are solicited to help us understand why members voted as they
>>> did. Because of the number of responses we have (43), we’ll
>>> limit each comment to 3 or less minutes (brevity is prized). As
>>> in any brainstorming session, the emphasis is on constructive
>>> comments that are intended to help the chairs and committee move
>>> forward and succeed.
>>>
>>> Comments and suggestions on the agenda are welcomed.
>>>
>>> Carl Cargill
>>>
>>> ===========
>>>
>>> 1. Confirmation of scribe. Volunteers welcome
>>>
>>> 2. Offline-caller-identification (see end for instructions)
>>>
>>> 3. DISCUSSIONS
>>>
>>> The session this week will center on a discussion of the poll
>>> that was completed this past week. With the results in, there
>>> are several conclusions that can be drawn from the results.
>>>
>>> 1.A significant minority of participants prefer to stop the
>>> group (Option 5), although the majority would like to continue
>>> the work in some form.
>>>
>>> 2.While the majority wanted to continue the group, a
>>> considerable number recommended a different plan by opting for
>>> options 3 or option 4.
>>>
>>> 3.There is dissatisfaction with the current process and the way
>>> to progress the committee.
>>>
>>> Given this background, the TPWG Chairs and W3C Management team
>>> feel that there is a desire to move forward, but we also feel is
>>> in necessary to spend some effort both improving or changing the
>>> plan; and working with the WG to build confidence in the plan.
>>> To that end, we will be structuring the discussion to allow
>>> everyone on the call a chance to provide*constructive
>>> suggestions*to move the group forward. The Chairs will use this
>>> input to re-think the plan and process. We want to have the
>>> benefit of this dialog before we sit down with the Director to
>>> review the poll results
>>>
>>> Each member of the committee will be allowed to speak to speak
>>> to describe how to improve the plan, process, or working group
>>> confidence (until we run out of time.) To make time for
>>> everyone possible, we’ll limit comments to 3 minutes. I will
>>> rigorously enforce the 3 minute limit, and will also work to the
>>> following brainstorming rules – that is, no criticism or other’s
>>> ideas, and one or two*positive*proposals for moving the group
>>> forward. You may build on a previous suggestion; you may not
>>> critique or criticize one. We are working within a confined
>>> scope (defined by the charter) and will expect comments within
>>> that framework. All comments will be considered by the chairs.
>>>
>>> *Underlying assumptions:*
>>>
>>> * the current Charter will not be revised or modified;
>>> * The group will continue work and will produce a
>>> specification (or two) that will focus on solving the issue
>>> specified in the charter.
>>>
>>> Your proposal may be augmented by sending the committee
>>> something in support of your comments before or after the
>>> discussion on Wednesday. To be effective, we’d suggest no more
>>> than two days after the discussion.
>>>
>>> We will also be reporting the results of the discussion and poll
>>> to the Director for his use in determination of the necessity of
>>> changes in direction or of the continuation of the committee.
>>>
>>> *N.B.* I will be unreasonably quick and merciless in stopping
>>> comments that are either out of scope or critical of other’s
>>> comments or suggestions.
>>>
>>> In the discussions, preference for speaking will be given to
>>> those who cast a vote since they have obviously formed and
>>> expressed an opinion, and we’d like to know (more of) their
>>> reasons for their votes. We will start at the top of the
>>> responders list and work our way down the list. There were 43
>>> responses. Three and a half minutes each (.5 minute to switch)
>>> gives us a total of 150 minutes; we have 90 minutes available.
>>> We will cover as many of the possible respondents as possible in
>>> the allocated time. Those who do not have a chance to speak and
>>> wished to make a point may do so via e-mail.
>>>
>>> While I appreciate that this is a relatively Draconian approach,
>>> it is the only method by which the chairs feel that we can get
>>> positive suggestions on a structured manner in a short time.
>>>
>>> ====== Infrastructure ===========
>>>
>>> Zakim teleconference bridge:
>>>
>>> VoIP: sip:zakim@voip.w3.org
>>>
>>> Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225) IRC Chat:irc.w3.org
>>> <http://irc.w3.org/><http://irc.w3.org/>, port 6665, #dnt
>>>
>>> OFFLINE caller identification:
>>>
>>> If you intend to join the phone call, you must either associate
>>> your phone number with your IRC username once you've joined the call
>>>
>>> (command: "Zakim, [ID] is [name]" e.g., "Zakim, ??P19 is
>>> schunter" in my case), or let Nick know your phone number ahead
>>> of time. If you are not comfortable with the Zakim IRC syntax
>>> for associating your phone number, please email your name and
>>> phone number tonpdoty@w3.org
>>> <mailto:npdoty@w3.org><mailto:npdoty@w3.org>. We want to reduce
>>> (in fact, eliminate) the time spent on the call identifying
>>> phone numbers. Note that if your number is not identified and
>>> you do not respond to off-the-phone reminders via IRC, you will
>>> be dropped from the call.
>>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 16:27:43 UTC