Re: issue-170

Hi Shane, yes we had this discussion but I don't recall agreement.
Personnally, I would like to keep it at one requirement, if they have an 
identical meaning.
In EU context I would prefer the term unambiguously over clearly.

Am 04.06.14 17:34, schrieb Shane M Wiley:
> I thought we had previously agreed to remove terms like "comprehensively" as they are highly subjective.  "Clear" should be more than enough as it embodies that the fullness of a concept was appropriately conveyed for it to be "clear" (and carries enough ambiguity on its own).
> - Shane
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ninja Marnau []
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 8:29 AM
> To: Mike O'Neill;; 'Jack Hobaugh'
> Subject: Re: issue-170
> Mike, I updated your proposal in the wiki.
> Jack, do you think the text proposal is now more balanced for DNT;0 and UGE?
> Ninja
> Am 04.06.14 14:38, schrieb Mike O'Neill:
>> If a 1st Party receives a request with DNT:0 set then data regarding the user MAY be used or shared but, if the header signal resulted from an explicitly-granted exception, only for the purposes that were clearly and comprehensively explained when the exception was granted.

Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 15:42:43 UTC