- From: James Rosewell via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 16:14:29 +0000
- To: public-patcg@w3.org
Responding to @alextcone in numeric order with a summary of the bullet point to introduce. 1a. *Laws* - We should pick a subset of laws (just like policy people do in global corporates) and work to them. Google and the CMA agree, and have picked GDPR. 1b. *Forms of democracy I agree with* - Absolutely not. The W3C membership would need to pick the laws that we aligned to, not me. We must not create quasi-laws as others have proposed. 2. *PATWG solutions* - We should include disciplines other than engineering. 3. *Unwieldy non-governmental actor you often pejoratively describe* - That is a risk, but one that can be mitigated in the charter via a focus on a specific scope and success criteria rather than types of solution. (However; see my last point). 4. *Therefore I conclude you seek to halt work on standards discussion that would have any disruptive effects on any current market dynamics.* - You assume the market dynamics are functioning. They aren't, which is why the CMA are investigating the Mobile Eco-System currently. However; if the discussion of a standard, or the potential standard itself will distort competition, then that has to be avoided under the W3C rules. I do not think appropriate advice has been received by the W3C in relation to the impact of standards setting on competition. I have previously mentioned I favour the W3C Director setting up a Legal Advisory group to enable qualified lawyers to inform W3C participants on these matters. Rushing ahead with a charter that has not been considered from this perspective should be avoided. If that means the pace of innovation is impaired to ensure the widest possible participants can innovate then that is a good thing. However maybe you are asserting I'm trying to insert bureaucracy into the PAT WG to delay it making process. That is not my intention and you have misunderstood me. 5. *SWAN.community* - SWAN will reduce the power of internet gatekeepers. So yes, there is a market impact because it broadens the scope for innovation and competition as directed by the CMA 2020 report. SWAN aligns to the remedies in the CMA report of 2020. Features like its audit log and approach to consent are being better understood and evolving. However this takes time and must be sufficiently advanced before further engineering effort is expended on a competition enabling form of PET. Solutions that restrict access to data, like IPA and Topics, do not align to the CMA agreement with Google. I sincerely hope the CMA will become more visible at W3C, or Google will speak to them and publish their opinion on specific proposals to reduce the "distraction taxes" on the industry. 6. *Whatever we do or don't do has impacts* - Yes. So lets put in the effort to make sure we don't create even more "distraction taxes" by progressing something that is not aligned to laws or the prevailing view of regulators. For the avoidance of doubt my preference is for the W3C to focus on general web features and not to work on Payments or Advertising specifically. By enabling general data sharing that aligns to laws many problems are solved rather than specific ones. Web browsers do not insert themselves into a process that would not otherwise need them. i.e. decisions over payments or advertising. That would mean rethinking the privacy boundary for the web. I would rather @martinthomson, @ekr, @dmarti, @AramZS and the other talented people focused their skills and energies on this. However as that is not to be, at the moment at least. -- GitHub Notification of comment by jwrosewell Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/issues/8#issuecomment-1083344816 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2022 16:15:04 UTC