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

Hi Heather and Sean,

I know your message here is a couple weeks old, I just wanted to tease out the particular concern expressed here in more detail. 

Is the issue that you fear that a user expectations standard is too ambiguous to be uniformly implemented or enforced? In that case, you might agree that user expectations should be what drives the definition for "first party" but that we need more detail either for implementers or enforcers. In that case, I think it would be useful for our discussion to describe some specific use case where implementation or enforcement would fail. And regarding the proposed alternative, it would help to have an explanation of why a corporate ownership standard matches to user expectations.

Or is the concern that a user expectations standard might lead to evaluations of what is a first party that you don't want? In that case you might agree that a user with Do Not Track enabled doesn't expect Disney to track their visits across ESPN.com and Marvel.com, but you think that data should be shared within a first party exception under the group's standard. Here we might have a debate among participants over the basic principle rather than the mechanism.

On Jan 5, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Heather West wrote:
> The initial version of this issue language was short and easy to understand, and I think that's one of the reasons that we all liked it conceptually. 

Sorry that I'm having trouble keeping track here, which version are you referring to? (I saw early proposals from Amy and Tom and the FPWD had a list of options.)

Thanks,
Nick