Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Following discussion with a number of colleagues this PR covers issue… #18

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Following discussion with a number of colleagues this PR covers issue… #18

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
71 changes: 47 additions & 24 deletions charter.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -75,17 +75,28 @@
<h1 id="title">PROPOSED Private Advertising Technology Working Group Charter</h1>
<!-- delete PROPOSED after AC review completed -->

<p class="mission">The <strong>mission</strong> of the <a href=""Private Advertising Technology Working Group</a>
motivated by the <a href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/">W3C TAG Ethical Web Principles</a>, is to
specify web features and APIs that support advertising while
acting in the interests of users, in particular providing strong
privacy assurances. The Working Group welcomes participation from
browser vendors, OS vendors, mobile application vendors, advertisers,
publishers, ad buyers, advertising platforms and intermediaries,
privacy advocates, web application developers, and other interested
parties.
<p class="mission">The <strong>mission</strong> of the
<a href="#">Private Advertising Technology Working Group</a>
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
Comment on lines +80 to +83
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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

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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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

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.
Comment on lines +85 to +87
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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>).

</p>

<h5 id="mission-notes">[1] Privacy Note</h5>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this section intended to be included @jwrosewell ?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not in the final version.

<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>

Comment on lines +90 to +99
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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>

<div class="noprint">
<p class="join"><a href="https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/[shortname]/join">Join the Private Web Advertising Working Group.</a></p>
</div>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -160,22 +171,20 @@ <h1 id="title">PROPOSED Private Advertising Technology Working Group Charter</h1
<section id="scope" class="scope">
<h2>Scope</h2>
<p>
The Working Group will specify new web platform features intended to
be implemented in browsers or similar user agents. The purpose of
these features is to support web advertising and provide users with
privacy guarantees with a strong technical basis.
The Working Group will specify solutions and essential inputs. The purpose of these solutions is to support
web advertising and user's Privacy.
</p>
<p>
The Working Group may consider designs that allow user agents for the
same user — including non-browser agents, like Operating Systems — to
collaborate in providing advertising features.
</p>
The Working Group may consider solutions that allow user's to receive a seamless experience across all the
devices they use.
</p>
</section>

<section id="section-out-of-scope">
<h3 id="out-of-scope">Out of Scope</h3>
<p>Features that support advertising but provide privacy by means that are primarily non-technical should be proposed elsewhere.</p>
</section>
<section id="section-out-of-scope">
<h3 id="out-of-scope">Out of Scope</h3>
<p>
Features and solutions that add new web browser APIs specifically for the purposes of web advertising.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@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.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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

</p>
</section>

<section id="deliverables">
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -251,7 +260,7 @@ <h3>Timeline</h3>
</section>

<section id="success-criteria">
<h2>Success Criteria</h2>
<h2>Success Criteria [2]</h2>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please use the GH issue mechanism to track open items.

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

<p>In order to advance to <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#RecsPR" title="Proposed Recommendation">Proposed Recommendation</a>, each normative specification is expected to have <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#implementation-experience">at least two independent implementations</a> of every feature defined in the specification.</p>

<p>
Expand All @@ -262,6 +271,11 @@ <h2>Success Criteria</h2>
<p>Normative specifications which have user-facing features should contain a section on accessibility that describes the benefits and impacts, including ways specification features can be used to address them, and recommendations for maximizing accessibility in implementations.</p>
</section>

<h5 id="success-criteria-notes">[2] Note on Success Criteria</h5>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this section intended to be included @jwrosewell ?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not in the final version.

<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>

Comment on lines +274 to +278
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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>

<section id="coordination">
<h2>Coordination</h2>
<p>For all specifications, this Working Group will seek <a href="https://www.w3.org/Guide/documentreview/#how_to_get_horizontal_review">horizontal review</a> for
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -334,8 +348,6 @@ <h2 id="participation">
<p>
The group also welcomes non-Members to contribute technical submissions for consideration upon their agreement to the terms of the <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/">W3C Patent Policy</a>.
</p>
<p>Participants in the group are required (by the <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#ParticipationCriteria">W3C Process</a>) to follow the
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

W3C <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/">Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct</a>.</p>
</section>

<section id="communication">
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -436,6 +448,17 @@ <h2>
</p>


<section id="datapolicy">
<h2>
Data Policy
</h2>
Comment on lines +451 to +454
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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>

<p>
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.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please define FRAND before first use by spelling it out?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

</p>
<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>
Comment on lines +458 to +460
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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>


<section id="licensing">
<h2>Licensing</h2>
<p>This Working Group will use the <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software">W3C Software and Document license</a> for all its deliverables.</p>
Expand Down