- From: ekr via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2022 14:44:45 +0000
- To: public-patcg@w3.org
I think it would be best here to adopt the general practice of not trying to draw CG conclusions about the meaning of various legal requirements, or to spend a lot of discussion time on those. Participants, of course, should be guided by the legal analysis of their own teams, but that's different from having it be a CG topic. Specifically, it is for Google to determine whether whatever they propose or support is consistent with their engagement with the CMA or other regulators. I do think it would be worthwhile for CMA to be involved in the CG and state their views, just like any other stakeholder. I do not think, however, that we should constrain our discussions to those proposals which have been "approved in principle by the CMA". Our job is to develop technical specifications as best we can, and of course this means taking the legal environment into account in the manner I noted above, but giving any specific national regulator a veto on what we consider seems likely to ensure that no progress is made. -- GitHub Notification of comment by ekr Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/issues/8#issuecomment-1085989485 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 1 April 2022 14:44:47 UTC