Indeed, it’s a known fact that the debate around data is divisive. I also think that the board wouldn’t be particularly interested in approving a definition that is purely aspirational, containing a null set of meaningful AI systems.
We also need to move on with the process, we can’t continue debating the same thing without adding new elements. Let’s get to the next phase, check what happens with the draft the way it is (the whole training dataset not required) and record what objections there are to data transparency requirements as the next best thing after public access to the full dataset.