RE: Agenda: W3C Process CG 27 September 2023

1)      Interoperability

Restrictions on interoperability are certainly an aspect.

Let’s take First Party Sets (FPS), a proposal from Google that was reviewed by the TAG as an example. [1] TAG stated, “It is likely that this proposal only benefits powerful, large entities that control both an implementation and services.” Not only myself, and the others that commented on it, but the TAG found FPS to be in breach of the W3C Antitrust guidelines.

Google then responded without addressing the competition concern. [2]

If the Process and the W3C Antitrust guidelines were working, then why wasn’t this proposal ruled out of scope?

Had FPS been rejected and removed from further W3C debate then the extensive amount of time that the TAG spend on reviews would not be needed and their time could be better spent. [3] If the TAG can be made more efficient by rejecting work that is out of scope there will be no need to increase the number of TAG members.

Most of the Privacy Sandbox proposals have competition concerns which are well documented elsewhere with regulators and are likely subject to similar harmful competition effects. The TAG minutes of March 2021 state “the entire privacy sandbox initiative feels like gaslighting.”

2)      Competition and advice

The presentation referenced recommends participants obtain independent legal advice. In assessing the FO we’ve raised, and any further iteration of the Process, obtaining and sharing that legal advice will help greatly. I have already done so.

If Chaals and W3C Team are so sure of their position, then it will do no harm for them to obtain the supporting legal advice and publish it. We would all then be able to compare the differences. Not doing so suggests that what they might wish to be true is not in fact supported by any reputable lawyers.

Indeed, the Board of Directors would not have filed with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice had they not had some concern about the W3C’s position in relation to competition. [5] I can only assume that the Board of Directors sought legal advice and instructed lawyers to make the filing. They remain tight lipped on the subject, which should be concerning for everyone. [6] Why not publish the advice? Either way we know there was a competition concern otherwise they would not have made the filing.

Once a safe environment and Process is in place in practice at the W3C then I would welcome the discussion proposed by Chaals.

[1] https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/blob/main/reviews/first_party_sets_feedback.md

[2] https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/342#issuecomment-1355093008

[3] https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/342#issuecomment-1150056909

[4] https://github.com/w3ctag/meetings/blob/gh-pages/2021/telcons/03-29-minutes.md#first-party-sets

[5] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/05/12/2023-10207/notice-pursuant-to-the-national-cooperative-research-and-production-act-of-1993-world-wide-web

[6] https://github.com/w3c/board/discussions/54 (member confidential)

-----Original Message-----
From: Chaals Nevile <charles.nevile@consensys.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 1:53 PM
To: James Rosewell <james@51degrees.com>; Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>; public-w3process@w3.org
Subject: 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-dca6-4092-8374-2db1427f232

> f/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
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.

Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2023 20:20:00 UTC