Skip to content

Separating Publisher and Advertising Technology Concerns in Success Criteria Will Create Needed Depth #67

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

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Separating Publisher and Advertising Technology Concerns in Success Criteria Will Create Needed Depth #67

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
c45ceab
Modifications to the success criteria to more clearly delineate stake…
AramZS Jul 8, 2020
ad15660
Marking phrases that need additional work through feedback
AramZS Jul 8, 2020
8e4cf4a
Accepting suggestion on how societies handle tech
AramZS Jul 14, 2020
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
117 changes: 48 additions & 69 deletions success-criteria.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -46,8 +46,8 @@ We have a shared goal of preserving the web as an open platform for diverse and
rich experiences provided by multiple parties. Towards this end, Improving Web
Advertising Business Group goal is to provide monetization opportunities that
support the open web while balancing the needs of publishers and the advertisers
that fund them with improvements to protect people from the individual and
societal impacts of tracking content consumption over time.
that fund them --with improvements to protect people from the individual and
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This combines two separate technical concerns, contextual-based tracking activity, which does not require de-anonymizing users to perform, and behavioral-tracking which is a very different set of technical concerns, even to the extent that they are covered by regulatory policies. . Behavioral tracking has a significantly larger scope, of which mapping consumption of content might be considered a part, but not a whole, We need to consider how technology involved in behavioral tracking represents a unique relationship to cross-site behavior and concerns. "Content consumption activity" does not define "behavior" which should also include tracking of geolocation, IP level data, system level data, Bluetooth beaconing, and network level data, all of which concern all of us in this group. I would like to discuss some changes in this phrasing to make the separation of concerns here clearer.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

JMK: Aram correctly points out that targeting based on current content consumption is distinct from targeting based on past content consumption. However, he believes attributes based "behavior" should be expanded to the non-text-based "contextual" factors of device, connection, geolocation factors.

I believe we should keep these important factors grouped into at least one distinct set of factors from content consumption activities--since the latter has far more privacy risks than bandwidth speed or device type choices by people.

My response:

I firmly disagree that these factors should be grouped into a single concern. Multiple investigations have shown that bandwidth speed and device type (among a number of other behavioral identifiers, including a variety available to apps) are both primary in the use of 1 to 1 identification of devices and users and that the process of identification to a single user via their device fingerprint or geolocation has caused significantly more concern to web users than the idea that they consumption of particular content might de-anonymize them. The significant thing here is that the chance of content consumption identifying a user goes down significantly if that user's information is stripped of device factors. As such these are significantly different behaviors that we must engage on in a separate basis.

I really don't think we can move forward unless we separate these factors (context-based tagging of users vs behavioral and fingerprint tagging) into different concerns, especially because they have radically different technical requirements.

societal impacts of tracking content consumption over time.--

This document surveys the body of prior W3C, IETF, regulators, legal, trade
bodies and other work to consolidate it into a single document with associated
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -113,34 +113,19 @@ behind this decision ought to be thoroughly documented.

This document considers web advertising from three [points of
view](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Points/)[POINTS]: that of individual web
users (both in aggregate and individually), publishers and their partners (both
users (both in aggregate and individually), --publishers and their partners (both
authors and the business model that funds them) and the delivery access
mechanism (both connectivity and navigation).

Any technology can be abused. Open societies do not attempt to suppress
technology, but rather put [appropriate
regulations](https://iabeurope.eu/all-news/iab-europes-press-statement-openrtb-and-eu-data-protection-law)
[OPEN-RTB-EU-LAW] in place to define acceptable and unacceptable uses of that
technology. For example, automobiles are not required to integrate functionality
that technically prevents them from exceeding the speed limit. Instead, drivers
are educated and trained in traffic rules, and drivers who violate speed limits
are subject to fines and/or deprived of their permits. However, documenting
specific criteria as to what constitutes a violation helps enable easier
detection and reporting of non-compliance with the regulations that govern
technology.
mechanism (both connectivity and navigation).--
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Most publishers would, I suspect, find points of difference from ad technology companies in concerns and descriptions of success. For example the two parties have different requirements in their interactions with users and see different regulatory issues in legal frameworks. I think we need to revise this representation as it stands here and throughout. We should aim for a more appropriate separation of concerns to resolve some of the issues privacy, both as a technical and legal challenge, brings forth. I’d like feedback from the authors about how we can rephrase this section to make those changes clearer.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Much agreed. Success criteria between publishers and adtech have historically not be in full alignment and conflating them won't bring clarity to the discussion. Success criteria for each should be produced separately, and then the community can decide what to focus on in terms of priorities and which to favour in case of conflict. Adtech is not represented in the Priority of Constituencies, which I would say is a bug.

Copy link
Member Author

@AramZS AramZS Jul 14, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

JMK: Aram correctly points out that publihsers and ad tech companies' interests are not always aligned and hence their concerns and requirements should be clearly called out, so developers can understand how their specifications may impact them.

However, this document does attempt to distinguish their distinct concerns and requirements. I would more granular feedback as to which interests or concerns are not yet included but should be.

My response:

I agree with @darobin here, these two interests need to be clearly delineated overall in order to find a solution. Otherwise we are essentially tricking ourselves into solutions that will degrade both relationships and interests between both parties down the line. Clear delineated constituencies are one of the things my edits attempt to bring to this document overall.

I do not have an edit given here, but I highlighted this specific phrasing because it definitely implies that these interests are the same. (emphasis mine)

This document considers web advertising from three points of view[POINTS]: that of individual web users (both in aggregate and individually), publishers and their partners (both authors and the business model that funds them) and the delivery access mechanism (both connectivity and navigation).

makes it seem to me that the document intends to bucket interests as follows:

  • web users
  • publishers and their partners
  • delivery access mechanisms

as indicated by the phrase 'three points of view'. I disagree with the idea that these represent three coherent singular points of view. There are arguably at least four (separating publishers from ad tech) but could be more than that. I'm not sure if it even makes sense to try and represent all four of those views within a single document, because in some cases those points of view may differ radically (an ad exchange, for example, prioritizes scale to an extent that drives their interests in a far different way than a local paper). As noted by @darobin it might even make sense, because these interests differ, to split them into different documents for clarity's sake. (Especially considering that one could argue that even publishers on their own do not constitute a monolithic single view, though that is an argument for another time.) But even if we do not do that, we need to make it clear up top that the publisher and ad tech concerns are not a singular coherent point of view. And developer changes will impact those concerns very differently which we would want to create feedback around and a conversation for such changes that would allow participants to weigh and understand those different impacts to different parties and interests.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The document updated yesterday starts to break out these differences. I think more work is needed and would like to setup a conference call to resolve this point across multiple contributors.


Any technology can be abused. Any technology can be abused. Open societies consider all technologies but define ethical, appropriate, unethical and inappropriate uses and regulate or restrict accordingly. Documenting specific criteria as to what constitutes an ethical use of a technology helps enable easier detection and reporting of non-compliance with the regulations that govern societies and support the process of constructing such regulations.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I struck these examples. Response is:

JMK: Should OECD (https://www.oecd.org/) be cited about the needs to regulate inappropraite or unethical uses of technology?

By documenting the defined norms and principles behind appropriate and
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

JR: I would delete this section. It is wrong to focus on one data protection principle, in this case accountability, in the absence of the others. In addition, it is not tenable to claim that accountability creates a requirement for “each participant that has access to data collection and processing to abide by its responsibility not to abuse the data under its control”. Data protection law does not say that data should be widely shared in order that recipients can decide whether to then protect it, and account for their actions. On the contrary, it says the opposite: data must not be exposed to unnecessary risk. This entire section should be removed.

[JWR] Article 24 of GDPR requires Controllers to “implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to demonstrate processing is performed in accordance with this regulation”. For this reason I think the paragraph is compatible with the GDPR. Could you advise if there is a better interpretation of Article 24?

I think my changes here around transparency and control lend a potential level of specificity to resolve this conflict, but it seems from this comment that it might make sense to make the ideas of "transparency" more clearly defined. I'm not sure who JR is? But would adding some more details here around transparency required for data handling under both a desire for accountability and a concern for regulation help with these questions?

inappropriate data collection and processing, we can better devise methods of
accountability. This accountability requires each participant that has access to
data collection and processing to abide by its responsibility not to abuse the
data under its control. This in turn requires definitions of legitimate data
collection and processing as well as transparency around whether the data
controller has fulfilled its obligations. One of the first assumptions we
document is that an advertising-funded business model supports the open web, and
hence any changes that degrade the efficacy of this business model negatively
impacts end users. While end users increasingly understand advertising funds
their free access to the open web, they desire improved transparency and control
over their personal data.
controller has fulfilled its obligations. One of the first assumptions we document is that an advertising-funded business model supports the open web and is a business model that positively impacts end users. End users increasingly understand advertising funds their free access to the open web. However, they join politicians, publishers and advocates in a desire for improved transparency and individual control over end user personal data.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

'degrade the efficacy' is poorly defined and implies that the current suite of proposals would do so, but that is not clearly proven. Propose we rephrase.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The section starting with 'While end users...' does not encompass all relevant interests. We should add detail here to be clear about all the interests we wish to understand and handle with any feedback within this group.

Copy link
Member Author

@AramZS AramZS Jul 14, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

JMK: Multiple studies have shown that as you degrade the accuracy, granularity, and timeliness of the data feeding algorithms the worse they perform -- hence the efficacy of marketers' algorithms will be degraded as we reduce the quality of inputs into them.

I agree with the the rephrasing, but suggest it is incomplete as it leaves out the above point.

This comes back to the top point - the worse they perform compared to what? I don't think a 'worse' or 'better' performance is the primary concern we need to engage with so much as the processes that exist and if we need those processes to continue. I am not sure it is useful to try and set the bar at 'zero degradation'. As such, unless you have a more specific phrasing here to consider, I think we should leave this edit as is.


![Ethical Data Collection and Processing Protects Freedom](images/success-criteria-3.png)

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -237,9 +222,7 @@ these supply-chain vendors is for cross-publisher budget management services,
independent verification, and authentication services, their objectivity is
necessary for accountability, transparency and reconciliation purposes. This
interoperability is a goal in support of W3C's mission and the first principle
in support of improved web advertising. The trust in this interoperable network
requires transparency and improved documentation of acceptable and unacceptable
uses of data. Organizations must be transparent about the personal information
in support of improved web advertising. The trust in this interoperable network requires transparency, reliable and consistent controls for both end users and publishers, and improved documentation of acceptable and unacceptable uses of data. Organizations must be transparent about the personal information
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Interoperable networks in general and this one in specific does not just require improved documentation but also improved and reliable controls. As an example: publishers may want to set specific higher levels of privacy beyond defaults while still using vendors that can serve more than one site. Proposed rephrase.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it's important to think beyond transparency & control. Those defined ethical data processing in the 70s, but things have changed a bit since.

they collect and how they use it. Organizations must responsibly use this
personal information that is compatible with the interests of individuals and
society, and be held accountable when they abuse this responsibility.
Expand All @@ -265,15 +248,7 @@ societies." Among the rationales supporting decentralization are choice and the
freedom of information. These rationales help keep the market innovative,
competitive and open to new entrants.

The common element among these rationales is the accessibility to a wide array
of diverse publishers. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis
[wrote](http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/j6075/edit/readings/brandeis_concurring1.html):
"Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are
education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgment of the rights
of free speech and assembly." [BRANDEIS] Thus, to exercise this freedom, people
should have digital access to publishers, which equates to both the right to
assembly and freedom of speech. Safeguarding and improving this accessibility
and choice should be goals of the Business Group.
The goals of this Business Group should be to understand how and why the interactions of users, publishers, ad technologies and marketers counteract or conflict with the goals of privacy-preserving users and regulations. Then to find and propose measures by which systems of publishers, technologies and marketers can be adjusted to continue to create profitable operations that supports a variety of freedoms while not counteracting a human right to privacy.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I find the use of equates to be an issue in the original text. It is an aspect of those freedoms, but it is not the only expression of such freedoms and it focuses on the surface at the level of publishers, when much of the problems of digital access and privacy arise from the interactions that occur below the level of the publisher page and within the large advertising technology economy.

I would strike this entire containing paragraph and pull scope down to a clearer and more focused statement. I think that it would be more accurate to describe our goals as providing mechanisms and considerations for users to control their privacy while still interacting with ad systems that provide monetization.


The IETF's Internet Architecture Board (IAB) also expressed concerns as to
growing consolidation of power on the Internet.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -311,10 +286,7 @@ whose operation relies on web advertising:
The above principles for an interoperable web seek to help advance the mission
of the W3C as well as further the objectives outlined by the UK CMA "to promote
competition for the benefit of consumers, both within and outside the UK, to
make markets work well for consumers, businesses, and the economy." To ensure a
level playing field, it is particularly important that smaller organizations be
able to rely on supply chain vendors they require to operate and for the changes
in web technology to encourage new market entrants.
make markets work well for consumers, businesses, and the economy." To ensure a level playing field, it is important that smaller organizations be able to rely on supply chain vendors, and to have those vendors operate transparently and with interoperability, in order for those organizations to operate and embrace changes in web technology while encouraging competition within the market.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is not the only concern, smaller organizations must also be able to rely on transparency and reliability from these vendors, including that these vendors operate on behalf as publishers another reason why transparency is important. Further, to create a competitive landscape publishers require interoperability as a principle from such vendors, to have standard methods by which to communicate operational preferences. Proposed change to refocus accordingly.


### Principles for Improving Interoperable Web Advertising

Expand All @@ -337,21 +309,23 @@ stakeholder group.

- Free elections protected against foreign manipulation

- While free speech requires allowing speech the majority does not
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am unclear what this has to do with the interests of society when expressed at this level of detail or why it is placed here. This is a minor point but is part of a much more major concern: free speech requires clear sourcing and identity at a publisher level. I have rephrased this point and put under Freedom of the press as a major point with the rephrase as a secondary point.

approve of, we can label political speech by the author’s
nationality and whether it is endorsed by one or more candidates

- Freedom of the press enables watch-dog reporting on important issues
and combats fake news

- Freedom of information to provide fast, easy access to internet-enabled
content for all

- Cost-free access enables access for all, regardless of economic
means

- Freedom from having to self-censor for fear of content consumption
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The section starting 'freedom from having to self-censor' is not clearly stated. I am unsure what self-censoring has to do with content consumption, I am unclear on the societal value of 'freedom from self-censorship' or why this group has an interest in it. I would argue that this line should be struck and we can add a major point under 'Interests of society' concerned with similar concepts instead.

being associated with directly-identifiable, offline identity
- Freedom of the press, which enables and supports:
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Freedom of the press should be a major point under the interests of society as a stakeholder group. It also has its own societal level concerns that we should account for relative to this document.


- watch dog reporting to keep governments and companies transparent and accountable

- combating fake news

- refuting and providing resources to counteract hoaxes, fraud, and libel

- support and amplification for citizen interests

- Freedom of press includes freedom for publications to amplify speech the majority does not approve of, however freedom of press and speech is curtailed unless all content is clearly accredited to specific publishers and authors and publications have the ability to distinguish themselves and their authors by making metadata about themselves and their authors available and transparent to the reader.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The above changes coincide well with efforts by the Schema dot org group to add additional dimensions of data about policy and objectives to both authors and publishers.


- Free-market economies rely on competition, and competition benefits from:

Expand All @@ -374,13 +348,17 @@ stakeholder group.

- Antitrust intervention

- Freedom to browse anonymously at will and have that choice respected by all entities. The ability to access content both freely and anonymously is essential to allowing ideas to fairly propagate.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This replaces the self-censor point.


#### Interests of Individual People

- Same interests as society-level plus:

- Fast, frictionless and secure access to a wide array of internet-enabled
content and services that make the Web so valuable

- - A right to choose private browsing without systems attempting to remove that anonymity.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A right to object is not a meaningful right. A right to stop is a meaningful right. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states privacy as a human right. Propose to move, strike and replace the 'right to object' section.

- Appropriate risk mitigation and remedies

- Increased transparency on data collection and processing purposes:
Expand All @@ -397,8 +375,6 @@ stakeholder group.

- Increased control over legitimate data processing purposes:

- Right to object to marketing-related data processing

- Consent for:

- Use of interest-based advertising
Expand All @@ -417,6 +393,10 @@ stakeholder group.
- Access to adult content by an appropriate guardian to prevent
unauthorized viewing by underage family members

- Tracking that would record any behavioral or user data of those under the age of 13

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The preceding point does not, as I understand it, cover even preexisting regulations in the body of COPPA. We should be sure that case is covered in our concerns.

- The joining of data from a web interaction or session with externally collected data.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The considerations of a user here do not include considerations of the consequences of behind-the-scenes data joining. We should include clear transparency around this concept along with tools of remedy.


- Remedy for the inappropriate use of personal data

- Right to be forgotten that benefits from:
Expand All @@ -434,6 +414,8 @@ stakeholder group.

- Right to appropriate remedies for harm (e.g., compensation)

- The prohibiting of association of their data from a specific source without being forced to delete that data.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also dealing with the concerns of stakeholders around data joining.

- Ability to understand why an advert was displayed, which brand endorses
this message and the identity of the supply chain vendors that connect
brands with their audience
Expand All @@ -443,39 +425,29 @@ stakeholder group.
- The publisher ad-funded business model is supported by addressing marketers
needs and wants.

- [Impacting these marketer interests, reduces publishers' revenue earned](https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/disabling_third-party_cookies_publisher_revenue.pdf)
- The capacity to positively match type and quality of publishers' content with advertising content
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Lacks clarity. Proposed to strike the first, as it appears to be assuming that marketers' interests can only be supported by 3p cookies, instead of a variety of measures.


- Negatively impacts the quantity and quality of publishers’ content
- Supporting quantity and quality of publisher content to create a diverse and competitive field of ad opportunities, which supports diverse publishers.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is not a marketer interest. Propose replacing.


- Reducing quantity and quality of publishers’ content, conflicts with the
interests of an open society

- Marketers who invest in cross-publisher advertising need scaled,
interoperable measurement and control:
- Marketers who invest in cross-publisher advertising need reporting, insights and recommendations to improve future business outcomes:
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is overly general. And since it is followed by specifics, we can strike the generalities, while taking the specific need from further down the list and make this version.


- Pre-campaign media planning and forecasting

- Data enrichment services (e.g., context, geographic, technographic,
audience)
- Services which provide additional dimensions to target, including general demographic definitions.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is poorly defined, to what extent do they need this? To what degree of precision? Proposed better phrasing.


- Intra-campaign delivery

- Real-time feedback to improve content matching and cross-publisher
budget reallocation to better engage with prospects and customers
based upon advertising return on investment (ROI)
- Feedback that can be used within less than the scope of time of a running campaign to measure and react to inventory changes across multiple ad-presenting-surfaces in a way that allows them to reasonably maximize their return on investment (ROI)
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Despite the promises of various vendors, reporting is not truly real-time even now. Let's define this better.


- Fraud and robot detection

- Post-campaign delivery

- Independent verification of delivery and measurement
- Independently verifiable measurement of delivery of ads
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not exactly correct in original phrasing as far as I can see. I think the correct phrasing would be as changed here.


- Attribution of first-party engagement to prior third-party exposure

- Aggregate content consumption trends

- Reporting, insights and recommendations to improve future business
outcomes
- Aggregate trend data describing the general contexts in which ads were seen and the reactions users had to those ads in order to refine targeting against specific contexts
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Non-specific. What, in this context, is content consumption? In the previous uses of the phrase in this document it seems like you are implying 'behavioral' trends here. I think it would be better to be more specific about the general, non-technical, requirements and leave the question of the technical fulfillment of those requirements to other documents.

How about this instead?


- Appropriate risk mitigation and remedies:

Expand All @@ -485,7 +457,7 @@ stakeholder group.

#### Interests of Publishers

- Ad-funded business model to provide free access to all:
- The capacity to run an ad-funded business that returns a profit significant enough to provide free access at scale and continue operation:
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Too general. How about this replacement.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This would benefit from a clearer definition of publishers, too. The definition that adtech has usually used for this has been "anything with inventory". I can write fart apps and torchlight apps that'll turn a profit at any scale. That's not the same as what people usually think of as publishers.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"Publishers" is defined using the W3C terminology listed here. This ensures the term "Publisher" will be familar to all W3C members across multiple documents.

I think your point is to distinguish between all publishers from quality publishers, which is the function of the healthy market operations, whereas the prupose of this document is to ensure an open market exists, and the impact on this market. This document can help authors evaluate their proposals even at the conceptual stage to ensure they're improving the web.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Where did you find that piece of history? A 1999 working draft is probably not the most useful reference for an evolving ecosystem. It's fine to adopt new more specific definitions for a new document.

Copy link
Contributor

@jwrosewell jwrosewell Jul 28, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've seen it used as a normative source in other relatively recent W3C documents so used it to ensure terms would be familiar to W3C participants rather than redefine them. I don't recall exactly which document it was in.


- Same as marketers' interests that maximize the value of advertising
inventory
Expand All @@ -501,8 +473,13 @@ stakeholder group.
open marketplace of vendors.

- Appropriate risk mitigation and remedies:
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not enough under this section. As a publisher we have a number of additional concerns that we’d like to see here. Proposed additions follow.

-
- Remedy for publisher content being misappropriated ("repurposing")
- Remedy for malware distributed by supply chain vendors
- Ability to connect users with suppliers who have shown ads
- Ability to assure that user and publisher privacy preferences are positively and correctly resolved by all agents in a supply chain.
- Ability to trace and block specific ads or ad sources that work against the publisher brand.

- Remedy for publisher brand being misappropriated ("repurposing")

#### Interests of Supply Chain Vendors

Expand All @@ -520,6 +497,8 @@ stakeholder group.
- Impartial and objective verification of exposure, reach and
performance

- Ability to positively confirm user privacy preferences and communicate to the user the state of their preferences.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should include this.


#### Interests of Delivery Access Providers or Gateway Apps (Browsers)

- Same interests as are desired by society and individuals plus:
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -680,4 +659,4 @@ Jason Novak; Lukasz Olejnik; Mike West. Working Group Note, 8 May 2020. URL:

David D. Clark, John Wroclawski , Karen R. Sollins, Robert Braden. Tussle in
Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow’s Internet. 2002. URL:
<http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/Tussle2002.pdf>
<http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/Tussle2002.pdf>