Oh huh, I thought I had written "private direct channel of communication" and on double-checking I appeared to had not done that. Admittedly, that could still be ambiguous on the second point, so I should go clarify this. Anything amiss by saying "A private direct channel of communication, for the purposes of this contract, constitutes either a direct email to a supplied email address (default: one registered with the Registrar's office) with no other parties, or some other mutually agreeable medium."?
天火狐 On 30 October 2017 at 15:34, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote: > > Could you explain why you feel it necessary to define "private", is the > common > > English definition not sufficient on some regard? > > It's a bit ambiguous in the common definition. > > - A "private" group could include more than 1 other person by common > definition. So if a third party is cc'd it's not clear whether that > counts as private. > > - If "private" is strictly the opposite of "public", the discussion > forum could qualify as private (less likely interpretation). > > > >
