Thank you.
I will just add that it is a convention that we use in the Criminal Code. The third thing that you read by Ruth Sullivan is exactly what this is. It's a class definition. The defined classes are proposed paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) before the “including”, and all the “including” is supposed to do is give examples of what a class covers.
The issue with making it “namely” and adding an exhaustive list in the paragraph (b) category is that you leave out things like IP addresses that are assigned, so important bits of information would be lost. When I mentioned future-proofing last time, it wasn't about being vague; it was about not using terminology, as Ms. Gibner just said, that is inappropriate for all service providers and may be left out.
I also made the comment that if we were to do something like that and make it an exhaustive list, the definition would have to be rebuilt into something to make sure that we don't miss important bits of information the police need for doing their investigations.