Re: Status of First-Party Sets

Hi all,

On 2022-06-09 11:05, Don Marti wrote:
> 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.

Just to be absolutely clear and on the record, the concerns I have are 
those I raised in my previous post and none other. They are:

• Concerns over how the WICG is used, primarily with respect to 
preserving its incubation status and ensuring that standards checks and 
balances persist if and when FPS moves forward; and
• Concerns that the lead editor and the chairs didn't seem to be on the 
same page in terms of how to gauge interest.

I think Chris addressed both of these concerns convincingly with his 
thoughtful and detailed response.

Further, as also indicated very explicitly in my previous posting, I do 
*not* suggest that work on FPS should stop. I do have qualms about FPS 
as I understand its current form, notably that it doesn't have 
sufficient purpose limitation or clear-enough an IEE model to really 
evaluate whether it would work or be another pinky-promise system. But 
these are *qualms*, not objections to continued work.

In architectural terms, I certainly think that there is potential value 
in solutions that sit in the FPS conceptual area even if not FPS 
exactly. There are cases in which first parties need to work together 
and providing means for coordination is useful. Historically, this has 
been done by providing third parties with greater power than first 
parties (the ability to observe people everywhere instead of in just one 
location) and this has resulted in intermediary capture. A system under 
which first parties can coordinate (and determine who they coordinate 
with so as to be able to enforce trust conditions) is worth looking 
into. I hesitate to further burden the already complex discussions of 
the FPS people, but the more purpose-limited the FPS mechanism is, the 
more we could in the future reuse it (in part or in full) for additional 
specific purposes.

I note this here because while I have way too little bandwidth to 
participate actively, I am supportive (again, as initially indicated) of 
continued discussion on FPS and if possible I would appreciate there 
being checkpoints at which the FPS community solicited wider feedback.

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

Received on Thursday, 9 June 2022 17:45:27 UTC