Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Scheme-bound Cookies (#483)

@annevk 

The purpose of the W3C as defined in the [Member Agreement](https://www.w3.org/2009/12/Member-Agreement) is to “_to support the advancement of information technology in the field of networking, graphics and user interfaces by evolving the World Wide Web toward a true information infrastructure, and to encourage cooperation in the industry through the promotion and development of standard interfaces in the information environment known as the World Wide Web_”.

With this in mind at least three questions must be answered before any proposal that seeks to remove “standard interfaces” and break interoperability should be considered irrespective of the technical implementation, justification or precedent.

1. What is the minimum required standard of evidence?
2. Does the justification and stakeholder review comply with the accepted norms?

Google also have a dominate market position which prompts a third question.

3. Does Google’s dominate market position have a bearing on the review process and the W3C’s purpose?

**Minimum standard of evidence**

Google have requested the W3C TAG review a proposal that will remove a long established “standard interface” and create a new “standard interface”. The proposal threatens the long-established interoperability of the “information environment” the W3C exists to protect.

The proposal contains supporting data to indicate the “standard interface” is widely used but lacks the detail to enable the TAG to impartially assess how the proposal will positively or negatively impact the “information environment” for all. The TAG is currently unable to determine if the proposal will support the “advancement of”, or in practice degrade, the web. 

What is TAG’s minimum standard of evidence required before a review is undertaken? This standard should be applied equally to all reviews seeking to change an established and widely used “standard interface” and enable an objective balancing test between benefits and impact.

**Norms of governance**

The proposal fails to meet the accepted norms associated with the governance of global standards.

The introduction of this proposal contains the following twitter thread as publicly available justification under the heading “Existing major pieces of multi-stakeholder review or discussion of this design:”.

![Twitter](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1679482/79832205-d5037100-83a0-11ea-8e29-5c3c1327cad5.png)

The additional information concerning stakeholder review with the IETF appears to go further but is limited to highly skilled engineers engaged in the field of technology standards and is not representative of the people who use the existing “standard interface”.

What is the minimum breadth of stakeholder review needed before TAG can themselves review a proposal that will impact 4,000,000,000 users of the web? Other governance models including telecommunications, radio standards or government regulation normally involve extensive proactive stakeholder consultation with the users and operators of the services in question over a meaningful period.

**Dominant market position**

According to Brendan Eich (Co-founded Mozilla & Firefox and creator of JavaScript) Google’s Chrome is the de-facto web browser. (https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/950209816902774785)

Google are free to unilaterally implement this proposal, or any change, within their browsers and do not require W3C approval. If they were to do so Google’s dominate market position would result in the change becoming a de-facto “standard interface”.

How does the TAG ensure they are not influenced by Google’s dominate market position? Are the indirect consequences to browser diversity or competition considered by W3C? If these factors are not openly recognised the W3C becomes involved in picking winners and losers. This is not the W3C’s purpose and it is important the W3C remain impartial.


At this early stage the proposal falls short in many areas of governance, consultation, justification and impact assessment. The W3C TAG should provide clear guidance to the proposer and all W3C members concerning the questions highlighted and pause the review process. The same broad approach should be applied to any proposal seeking to remove or alter “standard interfaces”.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/483#issuecomment-616982205