I don't see how we can get rid of "internationally recognized." If we don't know what that means (international covenants and laws) how do we know more by eliminating it? Would ICANN be committing itself to human rights as defined by Venezuela? Sweden? South Africa? The U.S.? And the qualifier "fundamental" is a good protection against some of the more outlying claims of human rights (e.g., the right to "development," which is part of a UN treaty). I think most people view fundamental rights as a subset of human rights, not the opposite as Matt suggests.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Nicolas Adam
> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 2:12 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG comments on the CCWG proposal
> 
> Yes, works for me too.
> 
> I can't decide w/r Matthew's point though. I am not sure I grasp what the
> presence or absence of "internationally recognized" and "fundamental"
> entails.
> 
> Nicolas
> 
> 
> On 04/09/2015 12:33 PM, Matthew Shears wrote:
> > Agree Milton.  Works for me (although I would prefer to remove the
> > qualifiers "internationally recognized" and "fundamental" - the first
> > has no meaning  and the second confuses fundamental rights on the one
> > hand and human rights on the other (fundamental being broader = UDHR +
> > ICCPR + ICESCR).
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> > On 9/4/2015 5:24 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> >> I may have found a way out of the lack of agreement on the human
> >> rights commitment.
> >> Actually it's very simple. I think we just express our support for
> >> the second, broader formulation.
> >> It contains a qualification ("within its mission") that would prevent
> >> any fears that a human rights commitment would take ICANN into all
> >> kinds of mission-creeping areas. Here is what I would propose as the
> >> final comment:
> >>
> >> 3. Human Rights definition and application The CCWG solicits comments
> >> on two different ways of formulating ICANN's commitment to human
> >> rights. Option one expressed ICANN's commitment "to respect the
> >> fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the
> >> free flow of information." Option 2 expressed ICANN's commitment more
> >> broadly, as:
> >>
> >> "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to
> >> respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights."
> >>
> >> NCSG supports the second, more general formulation. The first
> >> formulation is too limited, as it applies only to freedom of
> >> expression and not to other human rights, such as privacy, that are
> >> directly relevant to ICANN policies. The qualification "within its
> >> mission" should allay any fears that a broader human rights
> >> commitment would lead to inappropriate expansion of ICANN's mission.
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf
> >>> Of Mueller, Milton L
> >>> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2015 4:23 PM
> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG comments on the CCWG proposal
> >>>
> >>> Modified the comments on the enhanced Accountability plan after
> >>> reviewing the different opinions expressed on the list and on the
> >>> call two days ago.
> >>> It seems as if almost everyone commenting wants to oppose making
> GAC
> >>> a voting member of the Community Mechanism, Avri being the notable
> >>> exception.
> >>> However, we have toned down the level of opposition to aspects of
> >>> the SMCM.
> >>> I was unable to revise the human rights part of the comments. This
> >>> is because my opinion seems to be the outlier, and I am not sure I
> >>> understand what others are advocating well enough to pick up the pen
> >>> and write something that we can all agree on. So I invite those who
> >>> have commented (Matt, Tamir, Farzy, Carlos Raul) and others to make
> >>> their own proposed modifications.
> >>>
> >>> Take a look and tell us what you think
> >>>
> >>> Dr. Milton L Mueller
> >>> Professor, School of Public Policy
> >>> Georgia Institute of Technology
> >