Re: Status of First-Party Sets

I agree that FPS solves some legit use cases in a privacy-friendly manner.
I'd like to see the discussion continue.




On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:01 AM Salvo Nicotra <
salvo.nicotra@neodatagroup.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> +1 to keep the FPS discussion active,
>
> Ideally with a large consensus of different implementer.
>
> Salvo
>
>
>
> *From: *Scott Yates <scott@journallist.net>
> *Date: *Friday, 10 June 2022 at 17:50
> *To: *public-privacycg@w3.org <public-privacycg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *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 <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
>
>

-- 
Joel Odom
Director, Product Management
Cybersecurity & Privacy