- From: James Rosewell via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 19:44:23 +0000
- To: public-patcg@w3.org
I will close this particular comment thread after the meeting. It has formed a useful "scratch pad" for debate between the meetings. Chairs may wish to include reference for the record. I do not consider the subject closed as @darobin suggests for at least the following reasons. There are many stakeholders that have not had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. Particular those in Europe who are underrepresented in the meeting. Regarding the broader subject of privacy policy. The TAG document is not yet finalised and there is still opportunity to balance it so that it becomes more broadly acceptable. Issue number [106](https://github.com/w3ctag/privacy-principles/issues/106) is an example of such an issue. I'm concerned about privacy absolutists dictating the direction and the impact on competition of a position that provides internet gatekeepers licence to create information asymmetries. Ultimately I believe we need to agree a range on the following scale from [Model State Privacy Act](https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/CR_Model-State-Privacy-Act_022321_vf.pdf), embed that range in the charter, and then ensure we stick to it.  Thank you @darobin for sharing the documents. I have only skim read this particular document so I’m not in a position to comment on the broader content. -- GitHub Notification of comment by jwrosewell Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/proposals/issues/5#issuecomment-1035411869 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2022 19:44:25 UTC