Re: Draft Text on First Parties and Third Parties (ACTION-34, ISSUE-10, ISSUE-26, ISSUE-88)

Understood. I took my own notes, and we'll work from the minutes. If others would like to write up their proposed changes, that would be most helpful,

Jonathan

On Jan 4, 2012, at 3:46 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

> To be clear, I only provide the edits I personally suggested;  I think all of us were asked to be precise about what we were suggesting, and I didn't do anyone else's suggestions.
> 
> On Jan 4, 2012, at 15:42 , Jonathan Robert Mayer wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for taking notes. Tom and I will revise the text to incorporate what we heard on today's call. Much of the focus was on the edge cases of mashups and inadvertantly embedded content - which strongly suggests to me that we're very close to consensus.
>> 
>> The two outstanding high-level concerns that I recall are:
>> 
>> 1) Are the standards we provide workable in practice? I believe close calls will be very rare, and only companies gaming the margin would have to consider surveying users. Heather was less sure. Heather, could you suggest a few common use cases that lead to a difficult analysis under the draft's standards?
>> 
>> 2) Shane suggested (and a few supported) moving to a user-is-able-to-discover-information standard for what's a party and what's a first or third party. Shane, could you briefly sketch what this standard might look like and give a few examples where it would work a different result from our user expectations standard?
>> 
>> Jonathan
>> 
>> On Jan 4, 2012, at 1:27 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Here are my comments/suggestions, after this morning's call.
>>> 
>>> 1) section 2.1.  Make clear that the user is a party, or specifically say that the definition defines parties that may be 1st or 3rd.
>>>   also raise an issue for a clear definition of what falls into the 2nd party?? (e.g. software or other agents acting on the user's behalf??)
>>> 
>>> 2) section 2.1.  Consider adding the condition that two separate legal entities cannot be considered a single party (in our context).
>>> 
>>> 3) section 2.1.  Add an issue that we may want to strengthen the definition to the point where it is testable.
>>> 
>>> 4) section 4.1.  Make the definitions of what is a 1st party a list of conditions, all of which apply.
>>> 
>>> 5) section 4.1.  Add to the list of conditions:
>>>   a) the user must be directly aware of the existence and identity of a separate entity, prior to their interaction.
>>>   b) the user's makes an independent choice to communicate/interact with the entity.
>>> 
>>> Counter-examples to (a) are a weather or other widget with no obvious branding or other evidence to show it came from another organization or entity; the user is not aware of a separate identity behind it.
>>> Counter-examples to (b) are where sites are mash-ups of unpredictable sources; the user, by visiting the mash-up, chose only the mashing site as the first party; until the user interacts further, the mashed sites are third parties (and rule (a) applies as well - the user must be aware that they are mashed in, and not sourced by the mashing site).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 22, 2011, at 15:25 , Jonathan Mayer wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Tom and I have worked for several weeks on a comprehensive draft of the sections delineating first parties and third parties.  We attempted to reflect the approaching-consensus discussion at Santa Clara and on the email list.  Our draft includes both operative standards language and non-normative explanation and examples.  The text is formatted with the W3C template to better resemble how it would appear in the final document; please note that this is not an Editor's Draft (as the template might suggest).
>>>> 
>>>> Jonathan
>>>> 
>>>> <parties-draft-jm-tl.html>
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> David Singer
>>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>> 
>> 
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>