W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2010

Draft minutes of the TAG teleconference, 2 December 2010

From: Daniel Appelquist <daniel.appelquist@vodafone.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 12:06:13 +0000
To: tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C91E8DB5.6B84%daniel.appelquist@vodafone.com>
The draft minutes for yesterdayıs call are available here:


and also reflected below.


                               - DRAFT -

                          TAG Teleconference

02 Dec 2010


      [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/12/02-agenda.html

   See also: [3]IRC Log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/12/02-tagmem-irc


          Noah Mendelsohn, Daniel Appelquist, Tim Berners-Lee, Ashok
          Malhotra, Jonathan Rees, Paul Linss, Thinh Nguyen, Yves Lafon

          John Kemp

          Noah Mendelsohn

          Daniel Appelquist


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]ISSUE-25 (deepLinking-25): Legal issues relating to
         2. [6]Admin issues
     * [7]Summary of Action Items

   <plinss_> Thanks, my other meeting is wrapping up

   <scribe> Scribe: Dan

   <scribe> ScribeNick: DKA

   <timbl> Welcome, Peter!

ISSUE-25 (deepLinking-25): Legal issues relating to linking

   Noah: We have a visitor - Thinh Nguyen - on the call today.
   ... Thinh has done work with Creative Commons relating to linking.

   jar: This was purred by a couple threads I pointed to in my email.
   Still a lot of questions fermenting around linking in spite of a
   2003 TAG finding.
   ... I though it would be useful if Thihn could talk about his views
   on what w3c could do around linking...

   <noah> 2003 Finding ""Deep Linking" in the World Wide Web"

      [8] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/deeplinking-20030911

   jar: related to effort to write something new on this topic, in
   relation to what we are seeing on various web sites right now -
   non-linking policies.

   Thinh: Yes, I am a lawyer.
   ... I used to work for CC.
   ... CC is interested and has worked in the space of law on the
   Internet. Our goal has been to make things more open. Consistent
   with the view of W3C.
   ... I made some observations I'd like to share.
   ... this is my personal opinion, not legal advice...

   <noah> I assume that, for now, we're talking about US law and

   Thinh: first point : this area of deep linking has precedents going
   back to a number of cases. The courts have been recognizing and
   enforcing terms of use on the Internet.
   ... we've seen that in the case of creative commons licenses.

   <masinter> ((T said not just US law and precedent))

   Thinh: also wrt privacy policies - they are online agreements - and
   those are being enforced by courts. So on the question on "are these
   binding" I think they (increasingly) are.
   ... these terms of use, to the extent that they encroach on
   technical activities such as bots or deep linking, can break
   interoperability - not from a tech perspective.
   ... Also: not all contracts are legally enforceable. There are
   requirements. The user has to be aware of the contract. That is case

   <masinter> To what extent does offering something at a web site
   "[9]http://example.com" without access control imply you're giving
   someone license to access that information?

      [9] http://example.com/

   Thinh: courts have said that if the user can't find the contract
   then it's not enforceable.
   ... Natural variation in online contracts.
   ... Also - on the terms of the contracts, there is no standard. Some
   are clear, some are vague.
   ... Thirdly - we need to think about "where" they are placed
   ... that relates to the architecture of a web site - e.g. do deeper
   pages on a web site inherit the policy of top pages?
   ... So - to what extent does W3C want to encourage people to use a
   particular standard or point of view (e.g. do not prohibit deep
   linking or do so only under certain technical [circumstances]).

   <jar> or can 'deep linking' be prohibited only by obeying certain
   protocols (e.g. authentication)?

   Thinh: Lastly, what w3c can do to effect these contracts is limited
   - since these are between the service providers and the users. Never
   the less, it is relevant, because courts apply industry standards
   when agreements are vauge.
   ... For instance, the default rule for copyright is that I have to
   obey it. The default rule for contracts is that there is none.
   ... When courts are faced with [ambiguity] they look to default
   rules. W3C could [play a role].

   <jar> TN: default rules are important in court... may be supplied by
   technical standards

   Thinh: An example could be - the default rule could be that there is
   no restriction on deep linking.

   <noah> Since this is at the boundary between the technical and legal
   aspects of the Web, I wonder whether this is something the TAG
   should consider jointly with the AB or W3C team?

   Thinh: One thing you might do: comment on technical matters that
   effects how these rules play out. For example you might say: "The
   way the URL is structured should not be viewed as relevant to
   whether one web page is related to another."

   <masinter> I think for this to have legal impact it needs AC review
   & approval

   Thinh: [example of home page and then many pages off of that

   <noah> Seems like "site metadata" might be pertinent here?

   Thinh: if the w3c says that the way that a URL is structured is for
   convenience, but every web page is accessibile directly from the
   Internet and should be treated [separately] - then this could impact
   the legal rules [so you would have to have a notice or link to
   notice on every page].

   <masinter> to prevent deep linking, you would have to access control
   any pages that you don't want linked to?

   Thinh: Another idea: you could have a [standard] metadata for
   whether it's OK to link to a page.

   <masinter> is there some connection with our web applications
   discussion on state? Is a link to an application state also a kind
   of "deep link"?

   Thinh: Third idea: normative rules - rather than standards -
   statements where you encourage people to (e.g.) not restrict deep
   linking. This could be influential coming from the w3c. You could
   also have consensus around how the legal agreements themselves are
   structured. For example, a standard language around deep linking.

   <noah> Tim, I'm curious. Free speech clearly relates to the freedom
   to publish. Less clear to me how it relates to the freedom to
   access, or the ability of the publisher to restrict access.

   <Yves> freedom to access or freedom to point to?

   <noah> Both.

   <timbl> noah, later

   <noah> ok

   Thinh: The most important thing: since the w3c is the guardian of
   these standards, it [the w3c] is influential and it will be
   influential to courts. There are opportunities to shape the practice
   on the Internet. Alternatively, the practice will evolve based on
   what the courts decide on individual cases.

   Larry: I'm more comfortable with the idea that the w3c could make a
   statement about default rules. I do think that procedurally the more
   review among the members and the community the more acceptance and
   precedents this would have... We might consider coming up with a TAG
   finding, but I wonder if we might get more leverage with greater
   ... I wouldn't imagine us wanting to do that for something that went
   into great depth on what the law should say. But I do think we could
   come up with a default rule that people would be comfortable with.
   Since there are widely available access control mechanisms, the
   default rule could be that if you don't use access control, then the
   default rule should be that the [resource is linkable].
   ... Also, we have had discussion on use of URLs in web applications
   - using URLs to represent state e.g. for a map. Could there be a
   connection between a deep link to a static resource in a web page
   and a link to such a [transient] resource that is not intendended to
   be shared...

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to ask, if the terms are on the page, then
   you have to retrieve it merely to find the rules. Contradiction?

   Thinh: this makes me think - there's nothing about these
   recommendations that should make the statement that it's OK to
   engage in deceptive practices e.g. Phishing - it's important to not
   endorse that or imply an endorsement of that. Some of these terms of
   use are geared towards preventing that kind of practice.

   Noah: During your comments, you talked about - sometimes the terms
   might be expressed on the Web page itself - in the content you
   retrieve. In practice - that could work if the terms say "you're
   welcome to look at this page but you can't do other things with it."
   There are other ways of working with the Web that don't fit that
   ... does it hold up legally to put TOS on a page that say "you
   shouldn't retrieve this page"?
   ... other concerns: can I get at the content of the page, can I
   share a link to it?

   <timbl> (noah, have you ever seen a page with "dono reterive this
   page"? On it? not a common example I suspect)


     [10] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/terms-of-use.aspx

   Thinh: I can address: that issue came up in another case -
   shrinkwrap - you have to open up the shrinkwrap to read the
   agreement. The courts said it's OK as long as you can return the

   <timbl> "Your Links to Our Site: You are not permitted to link or
   shortcut to our Site from your Web site, blog or similar
   application, without obtaining prior written permission from us."

   Thinh: generally the courts will apply a general a general
   ... Notice. Anything you do until you until you see the agreement ,
   you can't be bounded by it because you didn't get notice.
   ... typical thing would be click-through agreements.
   ... but "defective" notices that don't provide the user reasonable
   notice... [courts] won't enforce. There has to be mutual
   ... Applying that reasoning to these cases, the same rule applies:
   has the user been given adequate notice and have they indicated

   <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to suggest that the right to link is free
   speech not copyright

   Tim: On deep linking: [giving example of gates foundation terms of


     [11] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/terms-of-use.aspx

   Tim: they have a document which says under "linking"...

   <noah> Your Links to Our Site: You are not permitted to link or
   shortcut to our Site from your Web site, blog or similar
   application, without obtaining prior written permission from us.

   Tim: so - I'm sure nobody reads that so not too many people are
   worried about it, but it gives them the idea that they have the
   right to do that.
   ... if I copy their page and put it on my blog, that could be an
   infringement of copyright.

   <noah> Seems to me that the analog is not copying the content of a
   copyright book, it's sharing the ISBN number for it.

   Tim: but if I'm referring it by a link. In general, discourse in the
   world requires this kind of referencing.
   ... E.g. the Sun news paper cannot put as a condition that you
   cannot refer to individual pages when you refer to a newspaper.
   ... When someone blogs about (e.g.) the Gates foundation, that's
   arguably good for them.
   ... If you put something on the Web, you can't deny me to right to
   talk about it.

   <jar> the question is whether the link prohibition in the TOU has
   any force (user knows & has a chance to decline, etc)

   Tim: Or we would need to stop using links. They don't have the
   ability to limit the ability to refer to them - it's something
   inherent in free speech.

   Thinh: I do believe there is a 1st amendment issue here.
   ... Fair use doesn't apply to contracts though.
   ... I agree that there are 1st amendment issues here. Using articles
   of culture in speech is of vital interest.

   <Yves> that kind of statement is also seen in other countries (like
   France), so US 1st amendment is not applying there.

   BTW freedom of speech also enshrined in the universal declaration of
   human rights: [12]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

     [12] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

   <Zakim> noah, you wanted to talk about non-US law

   Thinh: My proposal: nobody is thinking about the bigger picture.
   That argument hasn't been made. Courts might not understand it. If
   the w3c took a position that could inform the legal [discourse]...

   Noah: Thinh - a lot of those examples relate to the U.S. law - e.g.
   the 1st amendment - I think we believe the Web is a system where you
   can't tell by looking at the URI whose law might apply to it. The
   Web is an international system. Do you have comments on that?

   <masinter> the W3C is more likely to be listened to, and the
   arguments more likely to be accepted globally, than if we were to
   get into copyright, free speech, etc. Not that W3C shouldn't say
   things in those areas, but we'll get more leverage

   Thinh: It does complicate it. i am a US based lawyer so I am looking
   at it from a US perspective. In Europe they have a different legal
   system - a civil law system that try to cover every situation. There
   is national legislation that effects this. Europeans are more likely
   to be concerned about privacy issues and moral rights. Other
   countries vary.
   ... on the Internet, more and more countries are putting
   geographical barriers on the Internet.

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to argue for us to focus on "default
   rule" statement, since it's much more likely that we can make
   progress on that, and ask why the previous TAG finding isn't

   Larry: I agree that there is a broad range of areas where w3c could
   say something. But if we want to have an impact, focusing on the
   narrow default rule case could have leverage.
   ... since there is already a TAG finding on the issue, why isn't
   that enough? Does it not say it strongly enough? Is the message too
   diffuse? Does it not say the right things?

   <jar> review?

   <noah> "The conclusion is that any attempt to forbid the practice of
   deep linking is based on a misunderstanding of the technology, and
   threatens to undermine the functioning of the Web as a whole. "

   Noah: There is a conclusion in the intro to our finding which is
   pretty broad.

   <masinter> that doesn't really clearly establish a "default rule",

   <jar> The finding never went rec track. Didn't get explicit W3C

   <masinter> maybe try to get a rec track document on "default rule"
   specifically, based on TAG finding etc.?

   Thinh: That sounds like a pretty clear position. There are two
   directions you might go - one is to make more specific findings.
   E.g. the recommendations how you view the relationship between web
   ... another thing you could say: as a result of the finding there is
   a need for interoperability, web pages should be available [for
   ... unless there is a clear prohibition, putting a Web page up
   implies giving permission to link to it.
   ... 2nd direction: soliciting broader community feedback. The more
   widely adopted a standard or industry practice is the more
   influential it is.

   Noah: I don't think the 2003 finding has been referred to in a legal
   context.... [What else do we need to say?]

   Thinh: There is a lag time in the courts - sometimes 5-10 years.
   Creative commons was out for 5 years before there was legal case
   involving one of our licenses.

   Noah: If you look at the documents w3c - TAG findings don't have a
   lot of official status. We have recommendations which [do have more

   Thinh: That becomes more like an opinion, which are seen as of
   lesser importance than industry standards.

   <masinter> Would (also, instead) getting IETF BCP also help?

   Thinh: If you have recommendation that is backed by w3c, you could
   go to (eg) the gates foundation ...

   Larry: If I have an open, public voip service on the Internet not
   under access control, does that imply giving access to use it? Is it
   an internet issue?
   ... I think part of it may have do with denail-of-service and use of
   resources. People may want to make a service available publicly but
   not allow 3rd parties to use it as part of a commercial service. "We
   don't want everyone on the planet to come to our serer for

   <jar> tbl: the right to refer

   Tim: I think the voip example misses the point. With a link you are
   referring to work - it's about speech - it's about Web 1.0, the
   static Web...
   ... there are a few times you may want to constrain...
   ... if I publish on a web page examples of really bad an really good
   writing... Or an example of libel which I'm quoting, Then quoted out
   of context by someone else...

   <masinter> Giving someone a URL to someone else's resource is
   actually giving them a lot more than a reference

   Tim: the right to link is a Web thing, not an Internet thing.
   ... Maybe it's a URI thing?
   ... A use of an identifier. To the extent that IETF is involved in
   URNs, they may have an interest.
   ... example of ISBNs. But in general, it's a Web thing.

   <jar> [13]http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.pdf

     [13] http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.pdf

   Thinh: Happy to continue to engage on this.

   Noah: Thank you very much.


   <trackbot> ISSUE-25 -- What to say in defense of principle that deep
   linking isnot an illegal act? -- raised

   <trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/25

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/25

   <noah> [15]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/25

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/25

   Noah: We should talk about this....

   <noah> What to say in defense of principle that deep linking isnot
   an illegal act?

   Ashok: I wanted to differentiate between access and copying things.

   I support opening it and doing something on this issue.

   Noah: can we set goals, decide if anyone else in w3c needs to be
   involved, do we have anyone who's willing to take actions to do the
   detailed work?

   Larry: there is a finding - but it doesn't have the impact we'd like
   it to have.

   Noah: Whould moving it to recommendation status have any merit?

   Larry: should a W3C activity of limited scope with the TAG
   consulting do this or should the TAG do this?

   jar: We could turn this into an architectural recommendation.

   Noah: One option would be for the TAG to do the work on its own but
   think about producing a recommendation that would embody some
   default rules. Another way forward would be to spin up another
   activity on which the TAG would consult on.

   Larry: My personal preference is the latter. If we want a consensus
   finding it would be better to engage [externally] earlier.

   Noah: I think the first one is appealing because of the low startup
   overhead. I'd like to see if we can get someone on TAG to do a bit
   of work on this.

   <jar> dka: Work on it, in either way [arch rec or
   separate/affiliated group]. Can fold it into current work privacy

   <masinter> i'm less interested in "low startup cost" and more
   interested in "low overall cost". I don't htink the TAG can manage a
   public review process effectively

   Dan: Could this be folded in to the working group on privacy which
   possibly is going to happen?

   Ashok: I think this could work out better if there is a particular
   person who is targetted? Someone on the TAG responsible for driving
   the work.

   <masinter> Dan, it really seems like charter creep and out of scope
   for privacy

   <masinter> suggestion: ask AC

   Noah: is there anybody who could do some work here?

   <masinter> the end game for this is to manage a public review &
   comment & editing cycle on what the "default rule" is, the TAG
   finding isn't explicit on a lot of areas

   <masinter> I suggest resolving that the TAG ask the staff to ask the
   AC to spin somehting up on this

   Dan: I'd be happy to be one of the people involved in it.

   Tim: I've written something on it. I'd be happy to review what the
   TAG writes.
   ... Happy to provide text.

   Larry: we could pursue this - but I am concerned about the end game.

   <jar> great

   Larry: we could ask the staff to propose to the AC something - that
   it would be useful to have more explicit consensus around this topic
   ... I think that for this to be effective, we should be in a
   position to invite whoever (e.g. in the Bill & Melinda Gates
   Foundation wrote that text) and ask them to comment on this.

   <masinter> there already *IS* a TAG finding

   <masinter> having another TAG finding is unlikely to have any more

   <jar> impact will require 'community consensus'... findings don't
   have that

   <Zakim> masinter, you wanted to talk about end game and management
   of it

   Dan: I can take the next step [creating a document]...

   Noah: OK...

   Ashok: I was about to recommend something as a starting point.

   Noah: Proposal ro re-open ISSUE-25 and assign Dan action to start a

   <noah> open ISSUE-25

   <scribe> ACTION: Dan to start a document wrt issue-25 [recorded in

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2010/12/02-tagmem-minutes.html#action01

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-505 - Start a document wrt issue-25 [on
   Daniel Appelquist - due 2010-12-09].

   <timbl> tracker, open issue-25

   <noah> ISSU-25?

   <noah> ISSUE-25?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-25 -- What to say in defense of principle that deep
   linking isnot an illegal act? -- open

   <trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/25

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/25

   <jar> JAR regrets for 12/9

Admin issues

   <timbl> DKA, short and sweet is good for this doc

   Noah: I won't be available to chair the 16th.
   ... week after that is 2 days before xmas.

   <jar> ?

   Dan: I'll also be at the workshop.

   Tim: I'll be at the workshop.

   Dan: FYI I will be on a plane on the 23rd anyway.

   [discussion on possibility of cancelling on the 9th]

   Larry: I'm happy to chair it if it's useful.

   Noah: Agenda could include stuff from today that we didn't get to.

   <masinter> if thre are urgent topics that can't wait

   Noah: Objections to approving the minutes of october f2f?

   [none heard]

   RESOLUTION: minutes of October f2f meeting approved.

   <masinter> did we decide on meeting on 23rd? or will we postpone

   Noah: any objections to approval of TPAC f2f minutes?

   [none heard]

   RESOLUTION: minutes of TPAC f2f meetings approved

   <noah> Dropped.

   <noah> Larry, can you scribe on the 16th?

   <noah> We are adjourned, thank you.

   <masinter> yes, i can scribe

   <noah> Many thanks. bye

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Dan to start a document wrt issue-25 [recorded in

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2010/12/02-tagmem-minutes.html#action01
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 12:06:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:36 UTC