Re: Agenda: W3C Process CG 27 September 2023

The slides contain some extraneous stuff but do contain, inter alia, useful explanations of what competition law covers (basically, using market dominance to distort the market, whether it affects what consumers end up having to pay or who is in a position to compete as providers), some leading questions that are intended to help think about this in practical scenarios, and a few selected cases that show a tiny slice of what works out in practice.

The presentation is over an hour of reading out the slides and I don't recommend it except that it clarifies a bit the context (roughly, "this is our view").

It's all at https://movementforanopenweb.com/mow-and-preiskel-co-present-to-the-w3c-on-competition-law-in-standards-making/

There's a serious discussion topic that this seems to be a stalking horse for (it is mentioned, but the whole thing is ostensibly about a much bigger topic), that restricting cookie access to "first parties" is an unlawful restriction of competition. I am not convinced by the logical or legal arguments as raised. 

I do believe it is clear that the approach of "1P good 3P bad" is woefully inadequate to ensure that the Web enforces user's expectations of privacy by design, and I do think it concentrates market power in ways I am not convinced are healthy. 

I think it would be worth having a serious discussion on this specific topic - preferably without the distractions of legal threats to individuals, nebulous claims of nefarious activity and implications of criminal motive, and invoking the spectre of crippling liability on those who participate in the discussion.

I don't think that's in the scope of this week's agenda, and given that there is guidance provided and policy in place on anticompetitive behaviour, I am not sure that the general point needs urgent attention from the process CG.

cheers

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 10:04:08 (+02:00), James Rosewell wrote:

> I'm unable to attend the meeting today due to a long standing prior commitment.
> 
> Re agenda item 4. We're ready to engage in the FO when W3C ready. It is essential to now address competition issues at W3C. The AB handle legal matters according to recent minutes. TAG raise occasionally competition issues but don't have a consistent position. We know BoD concerned about competition position but being closed. The presentation prepared for IWA BG is a good source of information concerning the agenda item. I encourage all members of this group and AB to review it. James
> 
> Sent on mobile. Excuse brevity.
> ________________________________
> From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 3:55:09 PM
> To: public-w3process@w3.org <public-w3process@w3.org>
> Subject: Agenda: W3C Process CG 27 September 2023
> 
> Dial-in:
> https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/0535d249-dca6-4092-8374-2db1427f232f/20230927T070000/
> This meeting is at 7am Los Angeles, Wednesday 28 June 2023.
> 
> === Restarting the Process discussion post-TPAC 2023 and doing a bit of
> issue triage. ===
> 
> 
> 1. P2023.1 update
> 2. Updates from TPAC 2023?
> 3. New issues (since June)
> 4. Formal Objections and Council issues
> 5. Process 2024: REC maintenance #589
> 6. Picking up some deferred issues
> 
> Philippe
> 
> 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.
> 

-- 
Charles 'Chaals' Nevile
Lead Standards Architect, ConsenSys Inc

Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2023 12:52:47 UTC