- From: James Rosewell via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 11:19:07 +0000
- To: public-patcg@w3.org
A few points in response to @darobin. > None of it [the information provided to TAG and AC] features either reasoning or research that supports your claims Suffix the sentence with “that Robin is prepared to acknowledge”. Others have engaged with the substance, and many agree with it. As one example of research related to the need for W3C to [upgrade antitrust provision](https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/88) (which is member only visible) here is a list of the citations provided. _BUSINESSEUROPE: Business compliance with competition law. November 2011 International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), [Toolkit for SMEs](http://www.iccwbo.org/advocacy-codes-and-rules/areas-of-work/competition/why-complying-with-competition-law-is-good-for-business/), Why complying with competition law is good for your business, 2015 International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Commission on Competition: [Antitrust Compliance Toolkit](http://www.iccwbo.org/Advocacy-Codes-and-Rules/Areas-of-work/Competition/ICC-Antitrust-Compliance-Toolkit/), Practical antitrust compliance tools for SMEs and larger companies, 22 April 2013 International Chamber of Commerce (ICC): [Compliance as an antitrust law enforcement tool](https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/compliance/icc_compliance_general_en.pdf) International Chamber of Commerce: Promoting antitrust Compliance: the various approaches of national antitrust authorities . April 2011 The Chief Legal Officers Round Table (CLO) compliance working group: [CLO Compliance Blue Print](https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/compliance/clo_blue_print_en.pdf), endorsed by the ICC. July 2010 National competition authorities Autorité de la Concurrence: La prévention des infractions: les programmes de conformité aux règles de concurrence, February 2012 Framework document (available in [French](http://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/doc/document_cadre_conformite_10_fevrier_2012.pdf) and [English](http://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/doc/framework_document_compliance_10february2012.pdf)) and brochure ([French](http://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/doc/brochure_conformite_fr.pdf) and [English](http://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/doc/brochure_conformite_uk.pdf)) Office of Fair Trading (OFT): [Guidance on competition compliance](http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/competition-act-and-cartels/competition-law-compliance/), June 2011_ > why keep it secret? Because the details relate to the governance of W3C and legal matters which I consider are better dealt with between W3C Director, W3C Management, Hosts, and the raiser of the FO rather than in the public domain. There is also the continued request by W3C Counsel to not mention legal matters and the possible CEPC interpretations associated with such matters. It is therefore a matter for W3C Management to decide if they wish to publish the information provided to them along with their response. I respect that this is their choice and common when dealing with disputes of this nature. @darobin attempts to discredit me by suggesting this is uncommon. ### Re: Privacy Taskforce The “usual suspects” might be a better choice of words than “self-appointed”. Let’s look at the member affiliation groups of [Privacy Taskforce](https://github.com/w3ctag/privacy-principles/). * Browser vendors: 4 * Large publishers: 2 * Privacy advocates: 3 * Others: 1 * Law makers: 0 * Lawyers: 0 * Small publishers: 0 * Advertisers: 0 * AdTech: 0 * Total members: 10 Just like [Movement for an Open Web](https://movementforanopenweb.com/) I would like to judge the outcome of the work rather than the identity of the participants that created it. Unfortunately, the direction to date is not encouraging. ### Re: Standards and Quasi-Laws When I use the term “quasi-law” I’m not referring to technical standards for interoperability. That is a mischaracterisation @darobin introduces in an attempt to discredit me. Clearly the alignment of bits in a communication protocol has to be agreed upon in order for it to work. I’m referring to documents like the [Privacy Principles](https://w3ctag.github.io/privacy-principles/) which define quasi-laws by treating the law [as a floor not a ceiling](https://w3ctag.github.io/privacy-principles/#how-this-document-fits-in). No person is above or below the law. It is not the role of @darobin, or others on the Privacy Taskforce, to make laws for the rest of the web. When they do those rules become “quasi-laws” unrelated to technical interoperability. I trust this explanation clarifies my meaning. No bogeymen here. -- GitHub Notification of comment by jwrosewell Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/issues/6#issuecomment-1088581620 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2022 11:19:09 UTC