RE: Status of First-Party Sets

Baycloud Systems is also interested, especially if SAA or other user consent
protocol was incorporated and it gained wide browser involvement.  

 

From: Russell Stringham <rstringh@adobe.com> 
Sent: 09 June 2022 16:19
To: James Rosewell <james@51degrees.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>; public-privacycg@w3.org; Travis
Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>; Kaustubha Govind
<kaustubhag@google.com>; Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>; Theresa O'Connor
<hober@apple.com>; yoavweiss@chromium.org; Léonie Watson
<lwatson@tetralogical.com>; matthew.hancox@ing.com; david.verroken@ing.com;
Don Marti <dmarti@cafemedia.com>
Subject: Re: Status of First-Party Sets

 

Adobe is also very interested in continued exploration and development of
FPS.

 

Thanks,

Russell Stringham

 

From: Don Marti <dmarti@cafemedia.com <mailto:dmarti@cafemedia.com> >
Date: Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 9:07 AM
To: James Rosewell <james@51degrees.com <mailto:james@51degrees.com> >
Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com <mailto:cwilso@google.com> >,
public-privacycg@w3.org <mailto:public-privacycg@w3.org>
<public-privacycg@w3.org <mailto:public-privacycg@w3.org> >, Travis Leithead
<travis.leithead@microsoft.com <mailto:travis.leithead@microsoft.com> >,
Kaustubha Govind <kaustubhag@google.com <mailto:kaustubhag@google.com> >,
Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com <mailto:robin@berjon.com> >, Theresa O'Connor
<hober@apple.com <mailto:hober@apple.com> >, yoavweiss@chromium.org
<mailto:yoavweiss@chromium.org>  <yoavweiss@chromium.org
<mailto:yoavweiss@chromium.org> >, Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com
<mailto:lwatson@tetralogical.com> >, matthew.hancox@ing.com
<mailto:matthew.hancox@ing.com>  <matthew.hancox@ing.com
<mailto:matthew.hancox@ing.com> >, david.verroken@ing.com
<mailto:david.verroken@ing.com>  <david.verroken@ing.com
<mailto:david.verroken@ing.com> >
Subject: Re: Status of First-Party Sets

EXTERNAL: Use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments.

 

Hi all,

 

CafeMedia is still interested in discussing FPS.

 

We do have some outstanding issues covering responsibilities of the IEE and
criteria for set membership, and have submitted pull requests that might
help clarify both. Evaluating FPS will really depend on how the IEE works,
and we look forward to discussing at future meetings.

 

Best, 

Don

 

On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 7:25 AM James Rosewell <james@51degrees.com
<mailto:james@51degrees.com> > wrote:

Hi Chris,

 

I’m struggling from the links you have provided to identify the “significant
set of independent voices”. At best I can find three.

 

The discourse discussion is two years old and can hardly be considered
current. Issue 88 relates to a debate concerning the group that hosts the
FPS proposal rather than support for the proposal. Perhaps the
representatives from CafeMedia, Microsoft, and Salesforce who participated
in the issue 88 can confirm they are interest in the technical merits of
progressing the FPS proposal at WICG?

 

For the avoidance of doubt my own comment from the minutes referred to was
not an expression of interest for FPS as a solution. My only interest in FPS
is in following a proposal that negatively impacts competition in the
digital market and that as such cannot be ignored. I would prefer Google
voluntarily stopped work on it and communicated as such to the market.

 

I am interested in taking a fork, titled GDPR Validated Sets
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
m%2FWICG%2Ffirst-party-sets%2Fpull%2F86&data=05%7C01%7Crstringh%40adobe.com%
7C783683f214de4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C
0%7C637903840757238206%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV
2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ryCJONJmFBTF6upM
sEpVDO5XofHGqFZ95vd2utgBxpw%3D&reserved=0> , forward in WICG, Privacy CG, or
some other venue, should there be others who are interested. The GVS fork
removes discriminatory first and third party language, aligns to GDPR on
which we both agree is the applicable data protection legislation (see
CMA/Google commitments
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.pu
blishing.service.gov.uk%2Fmedia%2F62052c6a8fa8f510a204374a%2F100222_Appendix
_1A_Google_s_final_commitments.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Crstringh%40adobe.com%7C783
683f214de4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6
37903840757394427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz
IiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3WyKwQ23UrVvgSShVk3uI
o5N3WdJCuqMdqnfmuN75es%3D&reserved=0> ), and does not require a single
enforcement entity but rather uses existing solutions recognising they are
not always perfect. I would like Google to support this fork.

 

In relation to your assertion concerning WICG and justifications for
shipping features. That is not my experience. User Agent Client Hints (UACH)
exists only as a WICG document
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
m%2FWICG%2Fua-client-hints&data=05%7C01%7Crstringh%40adobe.com%7C783683f214d
e4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637903840
757394427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTi
I6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8bV7hA7S3aUQS376PMfH70PkBJ6%2
B3rTGYmQa%2BPQfjZE%3D&reserved=0>  which is dependent on an IETF
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.
org%2Frfc%2Frfc8942.html&data=05%7C01%7Crstringh%40adobe.com%7C783683f214de4
480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63790384075
7394427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6
Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2Ffu3%2Bqy97UzAF3Tsx8S3NZetTns
PAp1IEWrAkV7gyFo%3D&reserved=0>  experiment
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.
org%2Fstandards%2Fprocess%2Finformational-vs-experimental%2F&data=05%7C01%7C
rstringh%40adobe.com%7C783683f214de4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794
aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637903840757394427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoi
MC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&s
data=1kcL9GQk1zAx02Q6SSrDxEEF%2Bv0C2988dppi5IXU7JA%3D&reserved=0> . Neither
are a standard or have started the standards process. Yet UACH and User
Agent (UA) Reduction is being shipped today and existing widely used
interoperability interfered with which is having an impact on the
advertising eco-system among others (see Google quarter report to the CMA
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.u
k%2Fcma-cases%2Finvestigation-into-googles-privacy-sandbox-browser-changes%2
3googles-quarterly-report&data=05%7C01%7Crstringh%40adobe.com%7C783683f214de
4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6379038407
57394427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI
6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1WpDquEGCWVL6ZIg2fqRtH7dwWxT7C
SeINV6PaWhxGA%3D&reserved=0>  in relation to latency and fraud). The CCed
representatives from ING should monitor UA Reduction and UACH very closely.
However it is not a topic for the Privacy CG.

 

Regards,

 

James

 

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com <mailto:cwilso@google.com> > 
Sent: 08 June 2022 23:03
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com <mailto:robin@berjon.com> >
Cc: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>; James Rosewell
<james@51degrees.com <mailto:james@51degrees.com> >; Kaustubha Govind
<kaustubhag@google.com <mailto:kaustubhag@google.com> >; Theresa O'Connor
<hober@apple.com <mailto:hober@apple.com> >; yoavweiss@chromium.org
<mailto:yoavweiss@chromium.org> ; Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com
<mailto:lwatson@tetralogical.com> >; matthew.hancox@ing.com
<mailto:matthew.hancox@ing.com> ; david.verroken@ing.com
<mailto:david.verroken@ing.com> ; public-privacycg@w3.org
<mailto:public-privacycg@w3.org> 
Subject: Re: Status of First-Party Sets

 

Hey Robin, et al:

 

(For context, for those who don't know, I’m also a WICG co-chair.) 

 

The WICG is intended for incubation of standards features - as are all
community groups. It is important to remember that Community Groups are not
standards-track venues in the W3C, and one CG does not lend more legitimacy
to its products than another; they simply have potentially different
communities.  Nothing that lives in a W3C Community Group should be called a
“standard”.

 

As per the minutes of the Privacy CG meeting on 5/26/22 [1], Tess stated
that the PCG wanted to focus on “privacy stuff”, and FPS was not, in her
opinion, a good fit for the focus of their group;  this was backed up by
Pete, who said “Seems like PrivacyCG is not the right place to continue the
discussion.”  This was not by unanimous community consensus; but, as Tess
said, removing work items is at the discretion of the PCG chairs according
to its charter.    I’ve noted before my personal disagreement with giving
the very small number of browser engine companies essentially a veto vote
over incubations in the PCG; but regardless, that’s not the case in the
WICG.

 

As I said during the PCG meeting, the WICG will allow for incubation as long
as there are multiple independent entities (not specifically different root
implementations) that are interested.  FPS met that bar initially [2], and
continues to pass that bar - several PrivacyCG community members who are
supportive of the proposal chimed in on [3], including at least one other
browser vendor (Microsoft Edge) who is interested in continuing
development..  This should not be unexpected; FPS was adopted into the
Privacy CG from the WICG with the understanding that PCG wanted to spend
their community time on it; the fact that the Privacy CG have since decided
to stop spending time on this exploration does not change the fact that
there are still a significant set of independent voices that think it
continues to merit further incubation. 

 

On a separate note: Google Chrome and the broader Chromium project has not,
to my knowledge, used presence in the WICG as justification to ship any
feature.  It is true that the Blink process strongly encourages any
to-be-shipped feature to be in an open forum, to enable collaboration and at
the very least, eventual interoperability. However, having a specification
in an open forum is a baseline requirement, not a justification, for
shipping.

 

-Chris

 

[1]
https://github.com/privacycg/meetings/blob/main/2022/telcons/05-26-minutes.m
d
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
m%2Fprivacycg%2Fmeetings%2Fblob%2Fmain%2F2022%2Ftelcons%2F05-26-minutes.md&d
ata=05%7C01%7Crstringh%40adobe.com%7C783683f214de4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b
1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637903840757394427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG
Zsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3
000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=URllnFGTTPosVyZ4ANuwpo3SOFbhRHuA5J3mtPrDFz0%3D&reserved=0
> 

[2] http://discourse.wicg.io/t/proposal-first-party-sets/3331
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdiscourse.
wicg.io%2Ft%2Fproposal-first-party-sets%2F3331&data=05%7C01%7Crstringh%40ado
be.com%7C783683f214de4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1
%7C0%7C0%7C637903840757394427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLC
JQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QSjK5F4h9
SqIGinGSoo2vvVtgAGoe5klx9gRxTf0tws%3D&reserved=0>  

[3] https://github.com/WICG/first-party-sets/issues/88
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
m%2FWICG%2Ffirst-party-sets%2Fissues%2F88&data=05%7C01%7Crstringh%40adobe.co
m%7C783683f214de4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%
7C0%7C637903840757394427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjo
iV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=P8HLQc102x%2BD
7pGoTgtShgxeCm7KJr8Bt0qJY632xiM%3D&reserved=0>  

 

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 11:53 AM Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com
<mailto:robin@berjon.com> > wrote:

Hi Travis!

On 2022-06-06 14:09, Travis Leithead wrote:
>  > [..] I’m unsure how one would go about removing FPS from WICG. 
> Perhaps the WICG chairs can advise?
> 
> The WICG is home to over 120 <https://wicg.io/
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwicg.io%2
F&data=05%7C01%7Crstringh%40adobe.com%7C783683f214de4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cf
a7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637903840757394427%7CUnknown%7CTWF
pbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%
7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JRylkXqDwxPKRguQtmxxXJb3KkVCevLK5ScandCdLXA%3D&reserve
d=0> > unique incubations at 
> varying stages of maturity and implementation. While I have been a 
> co-chair, we have graduated numerous proposals into other venues, and 
> archived others at the request of their owners, but we've never forcibly 
> removed any incubations (even when they appear inactive for years). I 
> think it would set a bad precedent to start now. The WICG is a field for 
> sowing ideas; for this reason our criteria for acceptance is very low.

I think a potentially important point is at risk of finding itself 
buried under James's usual anti-privacy activism.

The status of FPS in WICG is unusual and (to me) unexpected. The WICG is 
intended for incubation of new features and early standard proposals. 
FPS has already been incubated quite a lot, and the incubation didn't 
pan out. I'm not suggesting that FPS be shut down — as we all know, 
sometimes standards take trying more than once — but I would encourage 
WICG chairs to be particularly careful that it does not impinge upon the 
WICG's reputation. There is already significant grumbling in the 
community that the WICG is primarily a venue for the standards-washing 
of Google's plans; it would be very unfortunate if the WICG found itself 
used as justification to ship FPS in a browser.

It also appears that Kaustubha and the Privacy CG chairs have a 
different appreciation of the status of implementer support. Given the 
importance that having multiple implementations holds in our processes 
and community, this is an issue that seems worth clarifying. Kaustubha: 
do you mind explaining your conclusion on this point? Again, I don't 
think that having just one implementer interested means FPS shouldn't go 
to the WICG (some things there have zero implementers interested and 
that's fine!) but we should at least be able to reach consensus on who 
is interested and how that impacts the legitimacy of shipping the feature!

-- 
Robin Berjon
VP Data Governance
Acting VP Marketing Analytics
The New York Times Company

This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged.
If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and
do not disclose, use, store or copy the information contained herein. This
is an email from 51Degrees.mobi Limited, Davidson House, Forbury Square,
Reading, RG1 3EU. T: +44 118 328 7152; E: info@51degrees.com
<mailto:info@51degrees.com> ; 51Degrees.mobi Limited t/as 51Degrees.