Re: June Change Proposal: Section 2, list of affiliates

Hi Amy,

I've added these alternatives (one a deletion and one replacing with a looser example) to the relevant wiki page:
http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Party_Definitions

Thanks,
Nick

P.S. I'm trying to separate these proposals by substantive question, which requires subdividing some of your section-wide comments. I promise I'm doing my best.

On Jun 26, 2013, at 5:59 AM, "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com> wrote:

> We recommend that the last sentence in the "party" definition regarding a "list of affiliates" be deleted.
> 
> o	Rationale: We do not understand why it is necessary to be able to provide a list of all affiliates, and instead believe it would be sufficient to determine the corporate entity that owns or operates the domain.  The current text is not clear as to whether the "single click" requirement is globally required for all DNT implementers, or only necessary when common party status is relied upon. In addition, the overly prescriptive requirement of "a single user interaction from each page" is unworkable in practice and unlikely to be helpful to users who are likely to be looking in a single place for explanation as to DNT implementation.  We therefore propose that the method of how parties may choose to make the list of affiliates "easily discoverable" be left to an implementation guide.  If participants desire to retain a text in the specification, the section could be modified 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 and MUST provide easy discoverability of affiliate organizations; FOR EXAMPLE, A LIST OF AFFILIATES THAT IS AVAILABLE VIA A LINK FROM A RESOURCE WHERE A PARTY DESCRIBES DNT PRACTICES WOULD BE CONSIDERED EASILY DISCOVERABLE."

Received on Thursday, 27 June 2013 00:24:02 UTC