ISSUE-10: Discoverability

On the call yesterday, we discussed how it might be possible to merge the options for the definition of party on the issue of discoverability.

Currently, Roy's language says: A party is a natural person, a legal entity, or a set of legal entities that share common owner(s), common controller(s), and a group identity that is easily discoverable by a user.

Amy/Chris's language says:  Parties MUST provide transparency about what affiliates are considered part of the same party. Examples of ways to provide this transparency are through common branding or by providing a list of affiliates that is available via a link from a resource where a party describes DNT practices.

And Jack's language says: For unique corporate entities to qualify as a common party with respect to this document, those entities MUST be commonly owned and commonly controlled and MUST provide easy discoverability of affiliate organizations. A list of affiliates MUST be available through user interaction from each page, for example, by following a link, or through a click.

First (and easiest) option: Would Amy/Chris and Jack just want to accede to Roy's less prescriptive language?  Alternatively, would authors want to add a sentence to Roy's such as "Example of ways to provide this discoverability are through common branding or by providing a list of affiliates that is available via a privacy policy." Or "A list of affiliates MUST be available through a privacy policy?"  (Or you could argue for adding the full language you provided, I was just suggesting a way to simplify in a way that is consistent with TPE.)