Re: Path forward... (RESPONSE REQUESTED)

My understanding, based on a very clear message from the WG chairs, is
similar to that of Alan, Aleecia and Jonathan: we need a specific and
affirmative decision from the group in order to go forward. While I
understand that a lot of work has been done by the group, I am less
optimistic about whether that work represented substantive gap-closing
on critical issues like unique identifiers, de-identification, and data
retention limits.

Dan

On 07/23/2013 01:35 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 July 2013 16:16:58 Alan Chapell wrote:
>>  I'm glad that you seem to agree with that approach.
> I'm not agreeing with any approach as I do not preempt the chairs. I 
> just want to provoke clarity of the discussions. 
>
>  --Rigo
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 21:13:00 UTC