Re: WABG scope clarification

Hi Wendy - Thanks for your note.

I'll take a closer look at the deck, and will consider additional ways to help make this BG more effective. But I recognize that as of right now, Chrome and a number of other key group members have made clear that they are participating primarily if not entirely to address Turtledove.

The description on the WABG homepage is so high level that it provides little practical information to someone outside the WABG regarding what we're actually doing here. Given that the primary focus of the BG is to provide Chrome with input into their new ad platform, I recommend that we indicate such on the homepage. I'm happy to suggest language if helpful. 

I agree that interoperability is an important goal, but also recognize that the other browsers have not been consistently active in the BG. I hope Mozilla, Apple and other browsers will correct me if I'm mistaken, but my sense is that there's currently little appetite on their end to participate in the process which seems to make interoperability less likely.

-a


On 7/6/20, 1:26 PM, "Wendy Seltzer" <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote:

    Thanks Alan,

    The BG homepage, https://www.w3.org/community/web-adv/ describes the
    group mission:
    "The mission of the Improving Web Advertising Business Group is to
    identify areas where standards and changes in the Web itself can improve
    the ecosystem and experience for users, advertisers, publishers,
    distributors, ad networks, agencies and others, and to oversee liaison
    with existing Working Groups and to create new Working Groups as needed."

    As you note, the role of a BG is not to propose consensus standards. or
    to develop consensus policies, but as a forum for industry participants
    to share use cases and needs from the web platform.

    Here's a pointer to the backgrounder slides I shared in a new
    participants' call and with PrivacyCG:
    https://www.w3.org/2020/05/WebAdvBackgrounder.pdf
    the last slide describes other kinds of groups and their roles: A
    Community Group such as PrivacyCG can incubate specification proposals;
    and Interest Group can be chartered to develop consensus guidance
    documents; while a Working Group can be chartered to reach consensus on
    specifications as formal W3C Recommendations.

    What else would help us to make this Ads BG the most effective place for
    discussing advertising use cases and gaps in the web platform and
    building the case for interoperable solutions?

    Thanks,
    --Wendy

    On 7/6/20 11:13 AM, Alan Chapell wrote:
    > Colleagues – 
    > 
    >  
    > 
    > Apologies as I was only able to participate sporadically on last week’s call due to connectivity issues. As I understand it, the Chrome team provided much needed clarification re: the current scope of the WABG. Personally, I think it would be helpful to have the scope written down somewhere to maximize efficiency and minimize confusion. In my view, it is not clear that someone outside this group reading about the WABG on the W3C website would understand what this group is trying to accomplish.
    > 
    >  
    > 
    > I’m sharing this via email so as to avoid taking up additional group discussion time defining scope as that seems to have become a point of frustration for some. I invite others to share their perspective, but here’s how I’m understanding things. 
    > 
    >  
    > 
    > Given that 3rd party cookies will be depreciated in Chrome, the Chrome team is seeking consultation with the marketplace as Chrome creates an alternative mechanism to enable the marketplace to advertise via Chrome. The primary role of the WABG is to provide input into what Chrome is creating, and the final decision on what gets created will be made by Google/Chrome. FWIW, I applaud Google for allowing input – in sharp contrast to Apple’s recent announcement re: IDFA.
    > 
    >  
    > 
    > That said, I’d encourage us all to be clear about what the WABG is - and what is not. The WABG is currently NOT setup to create a standard based upon industry consensus. Rather, it is primarily a forum for industry participants to provide limited input into an advertising platform being created by and ultimately administered by Chrome. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing – and I certainly hope the Chrome team will consider additional proposals such as they’ve done re: Sparrow. But as noted by Wendall and a few others on the call, Chrome is driving this process and the rest of us are providing feedback. Please note that the success or failure of many in the WABG are already contingent upon maintaining a good relationship with Google. As such, there is likely to be some perceived risk to being openly critical of the dominant market player in a public forum. And that is likely to color some of the feedback provided.
    > 
    >  
    > 
    > There are implications to choosing this direction. I’m probably stating the obvious here – but it’s worth noting that WABG participants will have limited insight into how decisions will be made re: Turtledove and nobody really knows how Turtledove fits into Google’s long-term strategic plans for its advertising business. Will all or part of Google’s adtech stack be subject to these same rules? Will Turtledove encourage innovation or serve to limit innovation? Will this benefit publishers or consumer privacy interests over the long term? What is the marketplace impact down the line if or when Chrome opts to create a fully integrated ad platform within Google’s tech stack?
    > 
    >  
    > 
    > I hope someone is willing to raise these questions – even if the WABG is not.
    > 
    >  
    > 
    >  
    > 
    > Cheers,
    > 
    >  
    > 
    > Alan Chapell
    > 
    > Chapell & Associates
    > 
    > 917 318 8440
    > 
    > 


    -- 
    Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office)
    Strategy Lead and Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
    https://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)

Received on Monday, 6 July 2020 18:35:20 UTC