Re: ACTION 124

This might also work for us.  Shane, your addition could be useful for publishers in that it provides clear guidance for compliance.  I need to circulate with a few members, but this should be very close.

Chris Pedigo
VP, Government Relations
Online Publishers Association
(202) 744-2967



On Feb 22, 2012, at 7:59 PM, "Shane Wiley" <wileys@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote:

Jonathan,

I can only speak for myself but feel the compromise positions are very close.  I’m fully on board with #3 and #4 (need to define “meaningful”).  I see #1 and #2 being somewhat the same and feel we’ll need the “Branding OR Affiliation with easily discoverable ownership” measure to be truly implementable in the marketplace.  Asking global companies that have invested decades in multi-brand strategies to either retool their backend architectures and/or retool their entire branding strategies (either direction is 10s of millions of dollars) feels difficult to achieve.  And we’ll want those large companies to implement DNT as this will help motivate all web sites to follow course (big brand effect).

What if we bring a more prescriptive treatment to the “easily discoverable” element of Affiliation?  For example, must use one of the following links: x, y, z AND must be stated above the fold in unavoidable and clear text.

Thoughts?

- Shane

1) What's in the same party?
Branding

2) What's a first party?
Branding (of the full-window website or app)

3) When does a third-party widget become a first-party widget?
Meaningful Interaction (as a set of bright-line rules)

4) Must a website make a representation about which entities it believes it is in a party with?
Yes


From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 4:30 PM
To: Amy Colando
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Re: ACTION 124

I think we're making good progress on the party definition and first party vs. third party issues.  For convenience, here's a quick comparison of this proposal and the proposal Tom and I have been workshopping.  (I'm working from my reading and off-list conversations; by all means correct me if I get anything wrong.)

1) What's in the same party?
Tom and Me: User Expectations
Amy, Shane, and Ted: Corporate Affiliation OR Branding

2) What's a first party?
Tom and Me: User Expectations
Amy, Shane, and Ted: The party that controls the domain in the URL bar.

3) When does a third-party widget become a first-party widget?
Tom and Me: User Expectations (sometimes phrased as "meaningful interaction")
Amy, Shane, and Ted: Interaction

4) Must a website make a representation about which entities it believes it is in a party with?
Tom and Me: Yes
Amy, Shane, and Ted: Yes


Here's what I'd like to float as a possible compromise.

1) What's in the same party?
Branding

2) What's a first party?
Branding (of the full-window website or app)

3) When does a third-party widget become a first-party widget?
Meaningful Interaction (as a set of bright-line rules)

4) Must a website make a representation about which entities it believes it is in a party with?
Yes


Thoughts?


On Feb 21, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Amy Colando (LCA) wrote:


Per the Action 124, here’s a proposed First Party definition that I have worked on with Shane and Ted:

A First Party is the entity that owns the Web site or has Control over the Web site the consumer visits. A First Party also includes the owner of a widget, search box or similar service with which a consumer interacts, even if such First Party does not own or have Control over the Web site where the widget or services are displayed to the consumer.

A First Party includes Affiliates of that First Party, but only to the extent that the Affiliate  is (1) an entity that Controls, is Controlled by, or us under common Control with, the First Party; or (2) an entity where the relationship to the First Party is clear to consumers through co-branding or similar means.

A First Party must make reasonable efforts to disclose, in a manner easily discoverable by Users, its ownership or Control of a site or service, such as through branding on the site or service, disclosures in the privacy policy or terms of use linked to that site or service, or ….

Control of an entity means that one entity (1) is under significant common ownership or operational control of the other entity, or (2) has the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of the other entity.  In addition, for an entity to be under the Control of another entity and be treated as a First Party under this standard, the entity must also adhere to DNT standard in this specification.


Amy Colando
Senior Attorney, Online Services
Microsoft Corporation
Office: 425.703.6329
Mobile: 206.658.7704