Re: Status of First-Party Sets

The board of JournalList would like to see the discussion and development
of FPS continue.

Aram's point is certainly valid that FPS is not directly a "privacy" issue,
so if the discussion needs to move to a different group that's fine, and is
part of why I wanted to weigh in... just to make sure that we are invited
to wherever that is.

-Scott Yates
Founder
JournalList.net, caretaker of the trust.txt framework
202-742-6842
Chair of W3C Credibility Group <https://www.w3.org/community/credibility/>
Member IPTC <https://iptc.org/> and Rebuild Local News
<https://www.rebuildlocalnews.org/>
Short Video Explanation of trust.txt <https://youtu.be/lunOBapQxpU>


On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 8:32 AM Brian May <bmay@dstillery.com> wrote:

> There are use-cases FPS is seeking to address and questions it is seeking
> to answer that are worth pursuing and I am interested in continuing the
> effort to develop them. What is the best way to stay informed
> about decisions regarding the future disposition of the proposal?
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 1:52 PM Zucker-Scharff, Aram <
> Aram.Zucker-Scharff@washpost.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not particularly interested in seeing further development of FPS, I
>> agree that it does not really qualify as a privacy proposal. Nothing about
>> it increases user privacy or gives users tools to preserve their privacy.
>> If it must be further developed, as seems likely with this level of
>> support, I think the best place for it is in a group that is not focused on
>> privacy. While I'd personally have preferred to see the end of the
>> proposal, I'm sure whatever happens next is best figured out in WICG.
>>
>> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* michael.oneill@baycloud.com <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 9, 2022, 11:59 AM
>> *To:* 'Russell Stringham' <rstringh@adobe.com>; 'James Rosewell' <
>> james@51degrees.com>
>> *Cc:* 'Chris Wilson' <cwilso@google.com>; public-privacycg@w3.org <
>> 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 <yoavweiss@chromium.org>; 'Léonie Watson' <
>> lwatson@tetralogical.com>; matthew.hancox@ing.com <matthew.hancox@ing.com>;
>> david.verroken@ing.com <david.verroken@ing.com>; 'Don Marti' <
>> dmarti@cafemedia.com>
>> *Subject:* RE: Status of First-Party Sets
>>
>> *CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER*
>>
>> 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>
>> *Date: *Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 9:07 AM
>> *To: *James Rosewell <james@51degrees.com>
>> *Cc: *Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, public-privacycg@w3.org <
>> 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 <
>> yoavweiss@chromium.org>, Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com>,
>> matthew.hancox@ing.com <matthew.hancox@ing.com>, david.verroken@ing.com <
>> 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>
>> 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.com%2FWICG%2Ffirst-party-sets%2Fpull%2F86&data=05%7C01%7Crstringh%40adobe.com%7C783683f214de4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637903840757238206%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ryCJONJmFBTF6upMsEpVDO5XofHGqFZ95vd2utgBxpw%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.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fmedia%2F62052c6a8fa8f510a204374a%2F100222_Appendix_1A_Google_s_final_commitments.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Crstringh%40adobe.com%7C783683f214de4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637903840757394427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3WyKwQ23UrVvgSShVk3uIo5N3WdJCuqMdqnfmuN75es%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.com%2FWICG%2Fua-client-hints&data=05%7C01%7Crstringh%40adobe.com%7C783683f214de4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637903840757394427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8bV7hA7S3aUQS376PMfH70PkBJ6%2B3rTGYmQa%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%7C783683f214de4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637903840757394427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2Ffu3%2Bqy97UzAF3Tsx8S3NZetTnsPAp1IEWrAkV7gyFo%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%7Crstringh%40adobe.com%7C783683f214de4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637903840757394427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=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.uk%2Fcma-cases%2Finvestigation-into-googles-privacy-sandbox-browser-changes%23googles-quarterly-report&data=05%7C01%7Crstringh%40adobe.com%7C783683f214de4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637903840757394427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1WpDquEGCWVL6ZIg2fqRtH7dwWxT7CSeINV6PaWhxGA%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>
>> *Sent:* 08 June 2022 23:03
>> *To:* Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
>> *Cc:* Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>; James Rosewell <
>> james@51degrees.com>; Kaustubha Govind <kaustubhag@google.com>; Theresa
>> O'Connor <hober@apple.com>; yoavweiss@chromium.org; Léonie Watson <
>> lwatson@tetralogical.com>; matthew.hancox@ing.com; david.verroken@ing.com;
>> 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.md
>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fprivacycg%2Fmeetings%2Fblob%2Fmain%2F2022%2Ftelcons%2F05-26-minutes.md&data=05%7C01%7Crstringh%40adobe.com%7C783683f214de4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637903840757394427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%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%40adobe.com%7C783683f214de4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637903840757394427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QSjK5F4h9SqIGinGSoo2vvVtgAGoe5klx9gRxTf0tws%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>> [3] https://github.com/WICG/first-party-sets/issues/88
>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FWICG%2Ffirst-party-sets%2Fissues%2F88&data=05%7C01%7Crstringh%40adobe.com%7C783683f214de4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637903840757394427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=P8HLQc102x%2BD7pGoTgtShgxeCm7KJr8Bt0qJY632xiM%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 11:53 AM Robin Berjon <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%2F&data=05%7C01%7Crstringh%40adobe.com%7C783683f214de4480d26e08da4a29b19c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637903840757394427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JRylkXqDwxPKRguQtmxxXJb3KkVCevLK5ScandCdLXA%3D&reserved=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; 51Degrees.mobi Limited t/as 51Degrees.
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
>
> Brian May
> Principal Engineer
> P: (848) 272-1164
>

Received on Friday, 10 June 2022 15:49:01 UTC