Editor: Yves Lafon
Status: Final
Visibility: Public
The following Formal Objections supported publication as a Statement only if changes were made to the document.
The TAG processed the Formal Objections, and the Formal Objections 1 and 3 led to proposed editorial changes to the Document.
Those editorial changes were accepted by the originators, and the Formal Objections withdrawn (See 1 and 3)
The Formal Objection #2 did not result in a proposal and the objector suggested the document not to be published as a W3C Statement, leading to the creation of Council to take a decision.
[Member] formally objects to the proposal to endorse the TAG Ethical Web Principles as a W3C statement. To be clear we endorse and support the idea that organisations should be ethical and adopt ethics policies to ensure good behaviour in their decision making. However, we question whether ethics should be determined and embedded into technical standards by any technical standards making body.
We therefore make the following observations for your further consideration.
1. There are seven meanings listed in OED's entry for the noun ethics. Choice of a moral base for ethical behaviour by its nature could create unnecessary and distracting debate.
2. Some of the principles are subjective. For example there is no agreed upon definition of harm, healthy debate, or freedom of expression. These have different connotations for western democracies than for more authoritarian states. As these are value laden concepts that often find their bases in conventions on human rights which many would support but some may not. If reference were made to definitions in UN Treaties that are already defined and agreed, the issue of definition and endorsement by different societies worldwide can be resolved.
3. The W3C aims to be a neutral technical standards body. In pursuing its mission to develop the Open Web its technical standards can and should support wide and diverse use, plurality of the media and a range of different commercial models. Both subscription and advertising models are currently supported and should continue without restriction. The W3C should focus on technical standards, and avoid any endorsement of existing or future businesses or business models.
This formal objection can be resolved by replacing the document with a set of neutral Web Architectural Principles. For example;
«Choke points, where a small number of entities can exert control over others, will be identified and removed via technical means where possible. Where choke points can not be removed the relevant regulators will be notified so that they can be encouraged to use non-technical means to address choke points.»
The Objector claim that only purely neutral technical arguments can be made. The TAG states the opposite position in the document: that technical choices are not neutral.
From the abstract: "As we continue to evolve the web platform, we must therefore consider the consequences of our work."
Later, in the Introduction:
We strive to maintain a strong ethical framework as a differentiator for the web platform, for example an emphasis on accessibility , privacy , and security.
Ensuring that the Web is accessible to anyone, in any language is definitely an ethical choice, not a purely technical one.