Charter needs to allow for competitive solutions not exclusively controlled by browsers

[jwrosewell]

We heard yesterday how proposals are being limited by the stated position of browser vendors.

Suppose a better solution could be identified if the innovators in this group did not feel constrained?

The charter needs to unambiguously allow for solutions not exclusively controlled by browser vendors.

This relates to the issue Utility vs Privacy for attribution proposals.

[martinthomson]

We heard yesterday how proposals are being limited by the stated position of browser vendors.

No. We heard opinions yesterday.

While I can't speak for what we will implement, Mozilla values the standards process and will respect its outcome. That isn't a commitment to implement anything - we can't make that commitment; especially if the outcome is not in the interests of our users - this is a negotiation and I want it to be clear that we are entering into that negotiation in good faith. My presentation yesterday was in the interests of being open about our starting position, that is all.

[alextcone]

The IPA proposal was written by Meta (not a browser) and Firefox (a browser who you want around to keep giving Chrome and Safari a run for their $).

[AramZS]

Our charter establishes our purpose:

... is to incubate web features and APIs that support advertising while acting in the interests of users, in particular providing strong privacy assurances.

The group welcomes participation from browser vendors, advertisers, publishers, ad buyers, advertising platforms and intermediaries, privacy advocates, web application developers, and other interested parties.

I am unclear how this might constrain us to stated positions of browser vendors. We've already had a presentation by a non-browser-vendor participant.

I think the charter makes it clear we are open to all input and intend to work towards outputs considering any proposals that are technically relevant and propose effective solutions.

[seanturner]

We should probably also transfer this one to: https://github.com/patcg/patcg.github.io/issues

[jwrosewell]

@martinthomson I was thinking of another talented engineer who confirmed they did not consider options that did not align to browser vendors stated positions. That is damaging for innovation.

@alextcone does IPA not rely on the browser to provide support and as a minimum not interfere with it?

@AramZS - question for browser vendors. Will they confirm they will not interfere with solutions that do not require them to make changes?

[alextcone]

@alextcone does IPA not rely on the browser to provide support and as a minimum not interfere with it?

Yes. All of these proposals at the W3C include browsers in some way. IPA distributes the systems though to include non-browser entities. This is also true for PARAKEET, MaCAW and Masked LARk (and even FLEDGE to some degree).

[seanturner]

@AramZS - question for browser vendors. Will they confirm they will not interfere with solutions that do not require them to make changes?

Can you clarify what you mean by "interfere"?

[AramZS]

With no progress on this I think that it is clear that unless this is resolved by #3 there is not a clear path forward on this issue. I do not see another eligible pull request.

Further:

question for browser vendors. Will they confirm they will not interfere with solutions that do not require them to make changes?

After some reflection, I'm not sure this is a useful question? This group does not have binding power over browser vendors. Further... in order to progress in technological development we cannot guarantee eternal backwards compatibility (which is the only framework in which I can understand this question, please correct if you intended something different). While browsers generally have been very generous with backwards compatibility there have been numerous situations where features were overwritten, made irrelevant, or turned off by future development. Just to take one major example which had serious detractors: the end of Flash in the browser. It is assumed that any piece of technology, including browsers, will alter or depreciate features. To ask them to do otherwise is to ask the impossible. Not to mention it would be a major threat to their ability to maintain safe and secure software. No technology has remained completely static in that way except maybe... RSS... and to accomplish that it declared itself in a development freeze, which is something I don't expect any browsers to do.

I was thinking of another talented engineer who confirmed they did not consider options that did not align to browser vendors stated positions. That is damaging for innovation.

This is an open venue. Anyone is free to engage. I have--as an individual--argued strongly and loudly against at least one of pretty much every major participant's various development efforts and I'm still here, still have a job, and am still talking about it. I don't really see people unable to talk about their opposition to any of the work done here or on privacy in general. In fact there are plenty of very vocal people. The CG is an open group, anyone may join and speak or contribute to a thread. If an individual or a representative of an organization truly does not feel comfortable speaking up, they may contact the chairs privately and we can consider including their objections as part of a larger report.

I'm not really interested in engaging with this claim that this process somehow excludes a silent majority that would object if only they weren't so frightened of something. We invite feedback in public, via email to the chairs, or through any trade group or other entity that wishes to participate. The IAB and the Center for Democracy and Technology have both sent participants (just to name two examples of non-tech/browser/publisher organizations). There are numerous ways to participate. Please stop making arguments grounded in invisible feedback.

---

@jwrosewell If #3 does not cover your concerns raised at the top of this thread I do not see a clear suggestion in this thread. Please supply a PR if you wish to move forward.