The current P3P syntax does not prohibit sites from declaring multiple duplicate entity 
fields, and effectively having multiple entity elements. However, there is no grouping 
mechanism, so user agents do not know how to display this information. W3C is an 
example of a site that is declaring multiple entity fields (we haven't seen others). We may 
want to recommend to the full WG that we (a) prohibit multiple ENTITY elements, or (b) 
add some sort of grouping mechanism and/or advice user agents what to do if a site has 
multiple ENTITY elements. Technically, it is probably easier to prohibit this. Some UA 
task force members also felt it was confusing to users to see multiple entities and that 
one entity should be designated to be listed. Rigo was concerned that in the case of a 
consortium or joint venture, multiple entities might be equally responsible. Dave said that 
the entity element doesn't indicate responsibility, only who the speaker is, and that it is 
common for joint ventures to designate a single entity as spokesperson. Rigo also said it 
would be convenient for users to see contact information in multiple countries so they 
could pick the phone number to call where they were likely to get someone who speaks 
their language. But others pointed out that ENTITY is not supposed to be used as a way 
for consumers to contact a company -- just a way to identify who the company is. The 
disputes element is used for contacting, and it allows multiple addresses to be listed.