Re: June Draft - Change Proposal to definition of "Party"

Great, thanks Chris and Amy!

I've replaced the two versions on the wiki with the text below (but kept links to the older proposals in case others want to read back).

http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Party_Definitions#Proposal:_Make_affiliate_list_an_example

Thanks,
Nick

On Jun 27, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org> wrote:

> Amy and I merged our language together as follows:
>  
> For unique corporate entities to qualify as a common party with respect to this document, those entities MUST be commonly owned and commonly controlled.  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.
>  
>  
> From: Nicholas Doty [mailto:npdoty@w3.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:05 PM
> To: Chris Pedigo; Amy Colando (LCA)
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: June Draft - Change Proposal to definition of "Party"
>  
> Hi Chris,
>  
> I've added this proposal to the wiki page:
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Party_Definitions
>  
> Given the similarities, I strongly suggest that we condense this option with that proposed by Amy Colando, tracked on the same page.
>  
> Thanks,
> Nick
>  
> On Jun 26, 2013, at 7:18 AM, Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> The current definition of “Party” includes the following language:
>  
> Current - “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 a single user interaction from each page, for example, by following a single link, or through a single click.”
>  
> I am concerned that the last sentence in particular might actually decrease transparency of affiliates.  Most of our members today disclose affiliates and their data sharing practices in a long form privacy policy.  A simple list of affiliates, as this language envisions, would provide no context about what data is shared or how that data is used or even what restrictions are put in place.  Also, providing a link on every page may not always be practical or even necessary for consumer education purposes.  Further, many consumers might be more familiar with the other brands under the corporate umbrella (as opposed to the corporate names).  In addition, this language would not allow corporations to use common branding to educate consumers about affiliates, which is arguably more transparent and which was advocated by the FTC in their March 2012 report.  For these reasons, I propose the following language (new language in bold):
>  
> Proposed - “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.  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 disclosing affiliates and affiliate data sharing practices in a long form privacy policy.”
>  
>  
> Chris Pedigo
> VP, Government Affairs
> Online Publishers Association
> (202) 744-2967
>