Editor: Yves Lafon
Status: Final
Visibility: Public
Refers to:
Despite attempts to resolve the Formal Objections, none were resolved.
The Objector agreed to meet with parts of the TAG to discuss how to resolve that Formal Objection, this led to several issues opened on the Document.
Those issues are tracked on GitHub along with proposed resolution Pull Requests.
The Task Force did agree on some points but not all, either by not having consensus, or by having consensus against.
After discussion with the Objector, the remaining blocking points are PR #436 that was merged but later reverted by merging PR #451, and PR #438 that was not merged.
Response from the Objector:
https://github.com/w3ctag/privacy-principles/pull/438
The FO stated
In section 2.2.1, the document describes "billing advertisers" as ancillary to the user's primary goal of accessing a site, which is misleading. In reality, the financial ecosystem of the web requires advertisers to fund the content that users consume. Disregarding this connection risks eroding the ad-supported internet model, leaving small publishers and content creators without sustainable means to continue providing content.Said differently, we need to ensure Publishers and Journalists can strive on the Open Internet, and that they can benefit from Advertising dollars. Billing is essential to Internet, Publishers & Journalists cannot live without being paid, which means that "Billing advertisers" is indeed supporting, and not ancillary.
https://github.com/w3ctag/privacy-principles/pull/436
The FO stated
The document fails to account for the reality that advertising involving user data processing of some form sustains the majority of free web content. By proposing mechanisms like global opt-out, it jeopardizes the very model that enables users to access content without direct payment. The document doesn't seem to fully acknowledge that publishers and content providers rely on certain data processing practices to fund their services. Not all data processing is inherently harmful, especially when users consent to it in exchange for access to free services.Free content is the way users access information on today's internet. We need to continue to offer high quality journalism and news to all users. To fuel this ecosystem, Publishers generally choose to offer their services in exchange of advertising, which itself relies on some user data processing - Contextual advertising is not a valid option (source). We need to ensure the Privacy Principle document encompasses this reality - and provide the framework to allow such business while ensuring the user has a clear choice and that the data processing is done in a private manner (see what's cooking in the PATWG for instance)
The core of this Formal Objection has been resolved by the decision of the W3C Council on the Formal Objection to the proposed Privacy Working Group Charter (See Team's Recommendation).
[Member A]'s comment cited in the Formal Objection was not considered as actionable, the Team asked [Member A]'s AC representative to raise more detailed issues to highlight his concerns, none has been registered.
The remaining issue for the first Formal Objection is based on a different view on what is the main way of enabling payment of services, one side arguing that the only way to monetize content is through advertising and user data processing in general, while the view of the TF allows for other way of renumeration.
The second objection was partially addressed in a previous Council. However, the requirement for "legislative suggestions" appears impractical to fulfill within a reasonable timeframe, given the global scope of this organization.
The Team let the Council deliberate on the merits of the first Formal Objection, but recommend that the second be overruled. This is because the first part was already resolved in a previous Council, and developing potential legislative suggestions falls outside the scope of this document.