No timeshare purchase is 'ownership' in the sense you seem to mean. DVC owners have a known end date but all timeshare 'owners' are subject to the whims of the company that actually owns and/or manages the property.
When people own a condo (full ownership), they are "subject to the whims" of the HOA. Timeshare owners of a fixed-week of a condo in an HOA-managed resort, "subject to the whims" of the HOA in the same way. Deeded timeshares are "owned" since they include a deed to real estate, however broadly divided. One cannot dispute that these are "owners" in the traditional sense of ownership of real estate.
Vacation Clubs (like DVC) have always
used language as a marketing ploy: DVC distanced themselves from Right-To-Use "timeshare" by describing DVC as a "vacation club" and a "piece of the magic", to assign a different social acceptability to their RTU timeshare. In the 1990s, some considered it deceptive for it's time, and all considered it
very effective marketing. The DVC product offers RTU rights to a leasehold agreement, not to a deed, and so it is not "ownership" in real estate. This has always been a point of contention for some. Whatever DVC calls itself, it is a RTU timeshare and subject to timeshare laws, so its purchases must be recorded with the county. That does not make it "ownership" in the real estate sense.
In recent years, DVC chose to distinguished rights to the leasehold-only vs. rights within the Club. Again, they
used language as a marketing ploy. This time, they used the terms "owners" vs. "members" in order to assign a "members-only" exclusivity to developer purchasers. Again, their selection of words ("owner" when there is no real estate ownership) is a point of contention as it appears deceptive.
After all, with DVC (or any RTU vacation club) there are no deed owners, no real estate owners outside of the developer, only lessees. Mostly very happy lessees but lessees, nonetheless.