Following discussion with a number of colleagues this PR covers issue…

[jwrosewell]

…s #5, #6, #8, and #16.

Solutions has been used to avoid steering the group towards specific outcomes. This relates to #5.

Privacy needs to be defined and used consistently throughout and relates to #6. The PR does not address this but capitalizes the term and suggests a section to achieve this is added.

The Scope has been modified to avoid excluding solutions that address the problem the group seeks to resolve utilising a combination of different disciplines and to avoid solutions that only web browsers can implement. This relates to #8.

Regarding access to data. References the patent policy and applies access to input data under FRAND terms and principles. This will address the issue concerning data access and aligns with the existing precedent associated with those that have something that is needed to make the specification working making all those things available to others. See the new chapter on Data Policy following Patent Policy. This relates to #16.

The Success Criteria are not clear and need further work.

Included several other changes in the PR to better align the document with the W3C Process which we identified during our review. For example the call out of specific sections of the W3C Process are removed as these are not needed and emphasis some elements over others. The W3C Antitrust Guidelines are now referenced as these don’t form part of the W3C Process.

This PR is a start to move the charter in a better direction rather than a finished charter.

My colleagues advise that reviewers from Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft, might wish to contact their colleagues Per Hellstrom, Tim Lamb, Oliver Bethell, and Greg Sivinski respectively for their views on the modifications.

[AramZS]

Are you intentionally removing the code of ethics and professional conduct from the charter here @jwrosewell ?

[jwrosewell]

It will be dependent on the W3C Process. If the Process CG remove it then it'll be removed from all Working Groups that don't reference it explicitly. If it changes then there will be a member review. At the moment it is references in the W3C Process and doesn't need to be duplicated in each charter.

[AramZS]

I think that if there is a process change we can change the charter but until that point I don't see a clear reason to exclude it, even if it is implicitly part of the charter by dint of the W3C process it can't hurt to have it in here to remind folks that this is indeed part of our process.

[AramZS]

Please define FRAND before first use by spelling it out?

[jwrosewell]

Ahead of a further commit it means Fair Reasonable And Non Discriminatory.

[AramZS]

Ok. I'm still unclear on what the intent of this is? Is it for access to test data? Is it to try and require something to be included in the specifications? What is it intended to protect access to?

[AramZS]

Is this section intended to be included @jwrosewell ?

[jwrosewell]

Not in the final version.

[AramZS]

Is this section intended to be included @jwrosewell ?

[jwrosewell]

Not in the final version.

[seanturner]

I am hoping that we can drop the references to the higher level principles, process, and agreements while we are spelling out the mission. Later we have lots of places to put references let's do it there.

Suggested change

	motivated by the need to develop open standards supporting the development of the Open Web in accordance with
	the <a href="https://www.w3.org/2009/12/Member-Agreement">W3C Member Agreement</a> and
	<a href="https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102">W3C Process</a> while taking into account all elements of the
	W3C Process, is to specify solutions that support advertising while acting in the interests of users, in
	is to specify solutions that support advertising while acting in the interests of users, in

[seanturner]

Please use the GH issue mechanism to track open items.

Suggested change

	particular providing Privacy [1]. The Working Group welcomes participation from all W3C Members that may wish to
	particular providing Privacy. The Working Group welcomes participation from all W3C Members that may wish to

[seanturner]

The addition of "users" makes me think that a back pointer to the proposed text in #14 (i.e., coordination section) as well as the participation section is needed.

Suggested change

	contribute, in particular, from browser users and vendors, OS vendors, application vendors, advertisers,
	publishers, ad buyers, advertising platforms and intermediaries, privacy advocates, web application developers,
	and other interested parties.
	contribute, in particular, from browser users and vendors, OS vendors, application vendors, advertisers,
	publishers, ad buyers, advertising platforms and intermediaries, privacy advocates, web application developers,
	and other interested parties (see <a href=#participation>Participation</a> and <a href=#coordination>Coordination</a>).

[seanturner]

Please use the GH issue mechanism to track open items. Also note that #20 has some suggested text to address this issue.

Suggested change

	<h5 id="mission-notes">[1] Privacy Note</h5>
	<p>
	<i>
	“Privacy” needs more definition. What is private or public is unlikely to be the issue. Protection of personal
	data is likely to be the issue. Here the likely implication is that the W3C group should be seeking to ensure
	technical neutrality and avoid infringement of data protection laws (which could be listed) or misuse of
	personal data as defined in data protection law.
	</i>
	</p>

[seanturner]

Please use the GH issue mechanism to track open items.

Suggested change

	<h2>Success Criteria [2]</h2>
	<h2>Success Criteria</h2>

[seanturner]

Please use the GH issue mechanism to track open issues.

Suggested change

	<h5 id="success-criteria-notes">[2] Note on Success Criteria</h5>
	<p>
	<i>There are many issues identified in relation to implementators creating defacto standards without broad agreement. Success Criteria needs more time for debate and discussion.</i>
	</p>

[seanturner]

Since this appears to be about patent policy, I would suggest that it be included in that section.

Suggested change

	<section id="datapolicy">
	<h2>
	Data Policy
	</h2>

[seanturner]

s5 of the Patent Policy refers to the licensing requirements and it uses the term "W3C Royal-Free license"; we should use the same term and not FRAND.

Suggested change

The W3C patent policy addresses the need for those that have patents over essential inputs to license them on FRAND terms to all Members. Inputs that may not be protected by patents but may be needed by others for implementation of a specification or standard also need to be available to all on FRAND terms to avoid the same issue of inputs being available to some and not others from arising.

The W3C patent policy addresses the need for those that have patents over essential inputs to license them on W3C Royalty-Free terms to all Members. Inputs that may not be protected by patents but may be needed by others for implementation of a specification or standard also need to be available to all on W3C Royalty-Free terms to avoid the same issue of inputs being available to some and not others from arising.

[seanturner]

I think that referring the W3C antitrust policy is a good idea. But, I think we can just refer to it directly and quote some of it.

As noted earlier, I think that patent policy section is the best place to address all W3C RF related discussions including the definition of Essential Inputs.

Suggested change

	<p>
	This Working Group operates under the <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2017/antitrust-guidance">W3C antitrust policy</a>. To promote the widest adoption, W3C seeks to issue specifications that can be implemented on a Royalty-Free basis. Essential Inputs are all inputs owned or controlled by a Member for which there is no alternative and which are required for the implementation of each specification. All essential inputs shall be made available on FRAND terms by Members of this group.
	</p>
	<section id="Anti-Trust Policy">
	<h2>
	Anti-Trust Policy
	<h2>
	<p>
	This Working Group operates under the <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2017/antitrust-guidance">W3C antitrust policy</a>.
	</p>

[martinthomson]

There are far too many changes here to review as a single changeset. Targeted changes would be much easier to review.

I have identified at least one that I am strongly opposed to.

[martinthomson]

I find it concerning that this change has gone without comment. This proposes a completely different remit for the working group relative to the community group. I am opposed to this change.

[AramZS]

I think that we have not yet gotten to the point where this is readable as a standalone PR and comments up to this point were intended to focus the changes into something that was in a clear format that could be discussed. That said, I do find this change particularly baffling.

[jwrosewell]

@AramZS In what way is this baffling? Why should the W3C start a Working Group to create business sector specific APIs? What business sectors does the W3C choose to adopt this approach in? Insurance, travel, publishing, commerce, health, legal?

The W3C must not be a vehicle for browser vendors to insert themselves into an ever increasing number of business sectors and models. If the group is to exist then it must focus on using general purpose APIs. If those general purpose APIs don't exist then it should propose them to the relevant groups. That is the intention of this change.

[AramZS]

With your clearer reply on the other issue, I've responded to this question there @jwrosewell patcg/meetings#52 (comment)

[AramZS]

@jwrosewell Considering objections on #8 and the feedback given here I do not believe that changes made to support #8 should be retained in this PR. In addition to other suggested changes to move this towards the point where we can discuss this PR, you should remove those pieces of your changes that are intended for supporting the case made in #8.

Additionally, to short-circuit another round of discussion, I think it would be best for you to remove your changes to the In Scope and Out of Scope sections so we can focus on the other changes.

The in-scope and out-of-scope changes are so substantial that we cannot discuss them alongside any other changes in the same PR. I think that they may portray a very different group you could seek to get chartered separately from this group, but they seem a bad fit for the goals, as previously established here and in the CG, for this working group.

[jwrosewell]

@AramZS We need input from I hope soon to be established Legal Advisory Group before progressing further with the charter. If that group is not established then we should request the aforementioned individuals and/or others from interested organisations attend to provide their considered opinions on the record. This will be important when presenting the charter to the W3C membership.

[AramZS]

@jwrosewell I do not have contact for those individuals, however, they are invited to comment and give feedback. Since the work on this charter is the work of the CG it is open to feedback from all. If you'd like to give me their contact information I'd be glad to make a specific request for their feedback on this charter and your proposal.

[AramZS]

No further progress has advanced on this issue or the related discussion. We will note the back and forth thus far in the upcoming meeting but I do not think I see any reason to discuss this issue in the upcoming meeting for the month of June.

[jwrosewell]

The onus is on the participants from the respective companies to consult their colleagues. If they're not prepared to do so, or share their colleagues input, perhaps they could advise and I can reconsider the PR?

[AramZS]

@jwrosewell I do not have the contact information for any of the folks you cited and your request to other participants for their review has been open all this time without any indication of input from them without even an indication from these parties that they are actively considering your issue we can't really consider letting it hold up the process of submitting the WG charter to the W3C for review, as such a hold could last indefinitely.

We've added elements of your PR where we found consensus on them but the remaining elements do not have any supporters currently advocating for them in the group other than yourself. If you'd like to split out specific parts, we can do so and try to refine individual components where we see some other support, but without that work I don't see much of a way we could further advance on the proposed changes as they stand, or allow them to hold up the process further.

[AramZS]

@jwrosewell At this time this PR represents a number of changes which have received significant opposition from other participants. Please either remove them from the PR or we can close this PR and you can present changes through smaller PRs.

[AramZS]

Without any changes or feedback we will consider closing this issue in the next meeting.

[jwrosewell]

The attached letter related to the W3C and competition law is relevant. It has been sent to relevant regulators and W3C Inc.

Please publish the advice the chairs received in relation the proposed charter from W3C General Counsel before closing the PR.

2023.01.25_W3C-Letter_W3C-redacted-version (3).pdf

[AramZS]

I will note we did not receive any specific advice to publish and I see no changes on this thread.

[jwrosewell]

@AramZS Please can you clarify. Did you ask for advice and none was received? Or did you not ask for advice at all? Or did you receive advice but are not willing to publish it? Thanks.

[AramZS]

@jwrosewell I'm declining to answer the question, as advice I may or may not have received is off topic. Please stop abusing W3C process to sidestep discovery.