W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > October 2013

Re: TPWG Agenda for the October 16 call (V02)

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:26:47 -0400
Message-ID: <525EBE47.2010700@w3.org>
To: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
CC: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:19 UTC