Re: [patwg-charter] All Working Group members agree to licence input data for specifications on FRAND terms (#30)

Briefly addressing @timcowen's comment:

> It was also observed that W3C standards are voluntary. That is not correct as a matter of competition law since they are in effect mandatory being endorsed by dominant browser owners (see further below).” - https://github.com/patcg/meetings/issues/52#issuecomment-1169927141

This does not reflect reality and reflects a comprehensive failure to understand how W3C and browser vendors are interlinked. Let's go through some examples:

- The relatively recent history of Internet Explorer. 
- The Color module (Safari adopts, others have not yet done so) - https://www.w3.org/TR/css-color-4/ 
- The history of slow to sometimes nonexistent adoption of specific features by Safari, detailed in length here - https://infrequently.org/2021/04/progress-delayed/
- And the interop dashboard shows significant drift between stable browser releases - https://wpt.fyi/interop-2022?stable 

None of this is intended by me to be critical of participants, but to demonstrate that major browser vendors adoption of standards is neither guaranteed nor specified by their participation in the W3C. If FLoC had reached a standard level, for example, it is almost certain browsers other than Chrome wouldn't implement it ( [see](https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/16/22387492/google-floc-ad-tech-privacy-browsers-brave-vivaldi-edge-mozilla-chrome-safari) ). 

Any attempt to use this group's charter or the W3C to bind user agents to particular legal terms is incompatible with how their membership in the W3C works. This includes FRAND. The only way one could attempt to integrate something like FRAND into user agent behaviors is **to make it part of a standard so that when a user agent adopts it they would have to adopt FRAND to be considered compliant with the standard**. 

This is my concern with comments in regard to FRAND at this point, they reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of:

1. How the charter would work
2. How chartering in the W3C works
3. How the W3C works
4. How the standards process within the W3C works

Thanks to @jwrosewell and @timcowen I do believe we have heard this objection, and--thanks to their excellent and detailed work explaining it--I believe we have understood it sufficiently in this regard and recognized it. 

@seanturner at this point I believe we should not further engage on the concept of adding FRAND into the charter. I do not see broad support and believe this to be a question of how W3C as a larger organization might choose to handle antitrust concerns, or of specific standards to which it might be relevant in the future. Do you agree? 

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by AramZS
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/issues/30#issuecomment-1170165010 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2022 15:58:11 UTC