I think point (f) of the motion certainly includes the study we could conduct on the award. I don't think it's necessary to amend the motion to include examples. If not, each time a new element is referred for study purposes, the motion will need to be amended to include it.
The way we interpret these elements could enable us to include certain things.
I think it's accurate to say that privacy and the protection of personal information are at stake in this type of discussion. When rules are too broad, there may be abuse or even perceived abuse.
We know that new information technology makes it much easier for people to follow our work. The motion assures the people who listen to us that, when we're not in front of them, it's for very specific reasons.