Follow-up from PR #4505 (distributed brand.json) — explicitly listed as out of scope there.
The gap
The single-hop, single-`house_domain` trust model can't express:
- JVs with two parents. Hulu pre-Disney (Disney + Comcast + Fox). Movie studios with shared distribution arms. Pharma co-development.
- Co-ownership without a holdco wrapper. Two equal-equity parents that didn't create a separate legal entity to wrap the brand.
Today such brands have to pick one canonical `house_domain` or use a holding entity that doesn't exist outside the protocol.
Options to consider
A. `house_domains: []` array on Brand Canonical Document. Multi-parent. Trust requires all named houses to reciprocate. Conflict resolution table grows — what if one parent says yes and the other doesn't?
B. Standalone JV shape. A new variant (6) for shared-ownership brands. Explicitly multi-parent at the variant level so the schema enforces the difference from a misused Brand Canonical Document.
C. Wrapper entity convention. Spec says "create a holding-entity brand.json that wraps the JV; both parents' `brand_refs[]` point at the holdco; the holdco's `brand_refs[]` points at the JV brand." Models multi-parent as a literal extra hop. Keeps the single-hop trust model.
D. Stay out of scope. Document the limitation honestly; let JVs live in the existing inline shape under whichever parent agreed to host.
Real-world cases to validate against
- Hulu pre-Disney (3 parents)
- Vodafone Idea (telecom JV)
- Universal Pictures Home Entertainment (JV between Universal and Paramount)
- Movie studio distribution arms
Scope guard
Cross-house governance disputes are a corporate-legal concern, not a protocol concern. The protocol's job is to publish who-claims-what; resolving who has the right to claim is out of scope.
Related
Follow-up from PR #4505 (distributed brand.json) — explicitly listed as out of scope there.
The gap
The single-hop, single-`house_domain` trust model can't express:
Today such brands have to pick one canonical `house_domain` or use a holding entity that doesn't exist outside the protocol.
Options to consider
A. `house_domains: []` array on Brand Canonical Document. Multi-parent. Trust requires all named houses to reciprocate. Conflict resolution table grows — what if one parent says yes and the other doesn't?
B. Standalone JV shape. A new variant (6) for shared-ownership brands. Explicitly multi-parent at the variant level so the schema enforces the difference from a misused Brand Canonical Document.
C. Wrapper entity convention. Spec says "create a holding-entity brand.json that wraps the JV; both parents' `brand_refs[]` point at the holdco; the holdco's `brand_refs[]` points at the JV brand." Models multi-parent as a literal extra hop. Keeps the single-hop trust model.
D. Stay out of scope. Document the limitation honestly; let JVs live in the existing inline shape under whichever parent agreed to host.
Real-world cases to validate against
Scope guard
Cross-house governance disputes are a corporate-legal concern, not a protocol concern. The protocol's job is to publish who-claims-what; resolving who has the right to claim is out of scope.
Related