Re: [meetings] Taking up Topics API for Next Meeting or Future Meeting? (#32)

Google and CMA reached an agreement on 4th February 2022 concerning Privacy Sandbox and Topics. The agreement requires Google to [train staff in Annex 3](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62052c6a8fa8f510a204374a/100222_Appendix_1A_Google_s_final_commitments.pdf), and [paragraph 4.119](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62052c52e90e077f7881c975/Google_Sandbox_.pdf) states, “Google has committed to instruct its staff and agents not to make claims to other market players that contradict the commitments, and to provide training to its relevant staff and agents to ensure that they are aware of the requirements of the Final Commitments”.

@cwilso @jkarlin has this training been complete?

Paragraph 21 of the agreement states “During the standstill period, the CMA may notify Google that competition law concerns remain such that the Purpose of the Commitments will not be achieved. Google will work with the CMA without delay to seek to resolve concerns raised and address comments made by the CMA with a view to achieving the Purpose of the Commitments. Google will inform the CMA of how it has responded to those comments”. Topics is explicitly covered by the agreement. Spending time discussing or developing the Topics proposal in PATCG, or anywhere else, will either a) fragment the web as Google will not be allowed by the CMA to implement the proposal; or b) merely waste our collective effort and time delaying the realisation of benefits via other proposals.

For Topics to become acceptable under the agreement parties other than a web browser will need to able to implement it. As a minimum the current text from @jkarlin will need to be modified to ensure that it can be implemented by any participant and not just user agent vendors.

@cwilso @jkarlin have Google verified with the CMA that the proposal meets the CMA’s requirements? If not, I would prefer that CMA provisional approval is obtained before doing any further work to avoid a) wasting participants time that could be better spent on other work; and b) distorting the market via communication that does not comply with the agreement.

Further, I was at a meeting of advertising and publishing executives (non-technical) last week. All were aware of Topics, proving that market communication is occurring. The consensus of the meeting is that Topics was “utterly useless”.

Finally, the Topics proposal does not meet the Antitrust Guidelines of the W3C. This has been covered [elsewhere](https://www.w3.org/2022/02/01-web-adv-minutes.html).

For those wishing to better understand the agreed commitments an [explanation](https://movementforanopenweb.com/analysis-of-cma-decision-on-privacy-sandbox/) has been produced by Movement for an Open Web (MOW).

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by jwrosewell
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/meetings/issues/32#issuecomment-1068943141 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2022 10:02:46 UTC