Re: Planning to close Consent Community Group due to inactivity unless we hear from you

Dear Consent WG,

We are currently working on a standard for measuring transparency performance, which can be used in a complaint process against the use of cookies and pixels in browsers.

In addition to this, we have a specification for secure transparency and consent assurance for browsers who are interested in being compliant, eliminating the permission fatigue dark pattern often called Consent fatigue.

The aim is to make transparent the liability of browser in using misinformed security practices to enable pernicious surveillance that tracks people without knowledge, consent or permission.

We would like to work from this work group on a very specific set of use cases which identifiers the legal liability of the browsers using the IAB transparency and consent framework. Part of this work is underway in the Kantara Initiative with a specification call the Transparency Performance Indicators.

The underlying case is in direct opposition to the Global Privacy Control, which is an opt-out of surveillance control, technically a security not a privacy control, In contrast we propose an opt-in to surveillance control with consent as the legal authority to permission surveillance on a granular technical level. Advocating for a process that converts ‘cookies’ into notice receipts, wherein the individual has the choice over whether not a service can process PII and personal data.

We think this is how to stop being secretly tracked and monitored without consent using fake and misleading permissions.

If this is of interest, we would like to call a meeting of GPR-C versus GPC, so this can be discussed openly, to ask for support on the legal and technical use case from this group, so that it can then be presented to the W3C Privacy Interest Group (PING), for consideration,

Mark Lizar
Executive Director
Global Privacy Rights Controls

> On 28 Oct 2024, at 14:05, Team Community Process <team-community-process@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Dear participants in the
>
> Consent Community Group
> https://www.w3.org/community/consent/
>
> In April 2024 we contacted you because your Community Group appeared
> to have become inactive (per [1]). Based on feedback in response to
> our message, we did not close the group, with the expectation that the
> group would soon become more active. Six months later, your group
> appears to still be inactive, and we are more inclined to close it
> unless we hear compelling reasons not to.
>
> If your group is in fact active, we ask that you respond to this email
> with answers to these two questions:
>
> * Is your group publishing any Specifications?
> * What is the group's expectation about future standardization of
> those Specifications at W3C or at some other standards body?
>
> We also recommend the following:
>
> * Let us know where the activity is going on so that we can update our
> data and improve our tools.
>
> * Update your group home page with news of your activities. Chairs
> can use the Wordpress instance of the group to post news; let us
> know if you have any questions.
>
> If you have good reason to believe the group will soon become
> active please let us know.
>
> If you would like to schedule a call to discuss the current status of
> your group, your plans, and any obstacles to success, or you simply
> have questions about the CG program, please let us know.
>
> If you are merely hopeful your group will soon become active, or if
> you would like us to close the group, or if we do not hear from you in
> the next 30 days, we will plan to close the group.
>
> Thank you,
>
> CG/BG System
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/about/faq/#close-inactive