Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] First-Party Sets (#342)

Thanks @erik-anderson for this really constructive comment! Regarding governance, one of the topics we discussed in a special TAG session on Monday (raw minutes [here](https://cryptpad.w3ctag.org/code/#/2/code/view/ENGmXyd7FzToEJP9LDLmHjRfgHhYt+1Xrs20d6sUgtQ/)) is what the governance is for. I think we still need to drill down on this. If the governance is to make sure that FPS members are part of the same organization then what is the definition of organization and how does that fit together with legal and regulatory?  For example, we discussed how under some definitions Facebook and WhatsApp might be the same organization - and just yesterday there was some [timely press coverage](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-13/facebook-faces-german-bid-to-halt-collection-of-whatsapp-data) demonstrating how that assumption breaks down when you consider regulatory and legal requirements. So I think the proposal needs to be very clear about the requirements when it comes to governance - what is governance of first party sets trying to achieve? I would like to hear more about the the existing allow lists that have been discussed - e.g. Disconnect, Firefox, Safari. How big are they? How are they managed?

-- 
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/342#issuecomment-819361242