Re: Change Proposals: Issue 10

Added Alan's text as a new change proposal for ISSUE-10:
http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Party_Definitions#Proposal_.286.29:_Ownership_or_Contract

While this builds on the affiliate-list-example text from Amy and Chris, I believe that this is a distinct proposal likely to have different support or raise different concerns among the WG, so I haven't merged it with Chris and Amy's text. Chris, Amy, Alan or others should feel free to correct me if I've got that wrong.

Thanks,
Nick

P.S. Sorry for the delay, this one slipped through my processing last week.

On October 8, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com> wrote:

> Proposal: Party definition Make affiliate list an example; add ownership OR contract as ways to reach "common party" status
> This builds upon a previous Proposal from Amy Colando and Proposal from Chris Pedigo and is in response to a suggestion from Justin Brookman as we look for the best home for this concept.
> 
> This is a replacement for last few sentences in section 2.4 Party
> 
> New text
> For unique corporate entities to qualify as a common party with respect to this document, those entities MUST be EITHER: commonly owned and commonly controlled OR enter into contract with other parties regarding the collection, retention, and use of data, share a common branding that is easily discoverable by a user, and describe their tracking practices clearly and conspicuously in a place that is easily discoverable by the user. Regardless, parties MUST provide transparency about what types of entities 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.
> 
> Rationale
> Strong contractual provisions and branding provide a level of privacy protections for consumers that is at least as good as Common ownership and branding.
> 
> Alan Chapell
> 
>