Re: RE : ISSUE-262: guidance regarding server responses and timing

On 2014-10-31 21:40, Shane M Wiley wrote:
> Vincent,
> The 1:M nature of the transaction does create challenges but it is
> still a Service Provider and should be treated as such.

Frankly, I don't see a way to reconcile the 1:M nature of the 
relationship as reconcilable with the definition of Service Provider.

"For the data received in a given network interaction, a service 
provider is considered to be the same party as its contractee if the 
service provider:

- processes the data on behalf of the contractee;
- ensures that the data is only retained, accessed, and used as directed 
by the contractee;
- has no independent right to use the data other than in a permanently 
deidentified form (e.g., for monitoring service integrity, load 
balancing, capacity planning, or billing); and,
- has a contract in place with the contractee which is consistent with 
the above limitations."

The above simply requires that a bidding platform cannot broadcast 
tracking information in order to be considered a service provider.



Received on Monday, 3 November 2014 12:21:09 UTC