W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > August 2012

Re: IAB US participation as expert

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 21:45:54 +0200
To: ifette@google.com
Cc: Craig Spiezle <craigs@otalliance.org>, Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>, Thomas Roessler - W3C <tlr@w3.org>, Nicholas Nick Doty - W3C <npdoty@w3.org>, "Aleecia M. McDonald - W3C WG Co-Chair" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, Matthias Schunter - WC3 WG Co-Chair <mts-std@schunter.org>, Marc Groman - NAI <mgroman@networkadvertising.org>, Shane Wiley - Yahoo! <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Brendan Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net>, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, Kimon Zorbas - IAB Europe <vp@iabeurope.eu>, JC Cannon - MSFT <jccannon@microsoft.com>, W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3530429.WKsOMVzIhd@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Ian, 

please take into account that it takes the IAB $7800 to change that 
and be a full Participant with all the rights and obligations. 
Slowly, all the wasted time on this topic costs more than the actual 
membership fee for IAB. W3C has operational costs. We are not-for 
profit. Those operational costs are covered by membership fees, 
donations and research grants. I find it legitimate that full 
participation is conditioned upon contribution to the recovering of 
operational cost. Especially from those who have a core interest in 
work we are doing. The IAB is simply not accepting this and thus 
creates turbulence in the process because we do not strictly apply 
the usual restrictions for that case (that would lock them out).

Note that this is solely my personal opinion and does not represent 
any official W3C statement, nor a W3C team statement nor does it 
preclude or preempt any decision-making by W3C, the chairs or both 
combined on this matter. 

Rigo


On Thursday 09 August 2012 10:36:51 Ian Fette wrote:
> Indeed, I find it rather strange that the main target of this
> working group is practices for advertisers and yet one of the
> main groups representing advertisers doesn't have a vote at the
> table... I realize that this is at the discretion of the chairs,
> but we're probably all lacking some context here. It seems that
> this has been raised multiple times, is it possible for the
> chairs to provide more insight into why this hasn't been advanced
> to date?
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 19:46:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:54 UTC