Milton/Colleagues

I think that the draft is quite fine and for the main I agree with it.
Without in any way seeking to relitigate the issue, however, I know that the
human rights language is one from which Heritage would dissent.  Is there
some way of generically  making clear that the NCSG comments do not reflect
the agreement of all NCSG members?

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
[log in to unmask] 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key


-----Original Message-----
From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 12:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: CCWG comments last call

I have made some revisions. We seem to have rough consensus that we are
opposed to the proposed voting allocations and consider them and two other
things serious enough to raise doubts about whether the CCWG-Accountability
proposal enhances ICANN's accountability. The comments now note that we are
not unanimous on this but do have a preponderance of opinion that would
constitute rough consensus. We all seem to be in agreement about our
discussion of the so-called "freedom to contract" section and the section on
advice from public authorities. We also now seem to have a way forward on
how to handle the HR commitment, though that has only been floated a few
minutes ago so it needs more review.

In reviewing these comments, please refrain from the temptation to introduce
minor wordsmithing - we really don't have time for it at this point. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JGBXO5oOiN_FxivPFkHjz3Gc2w3AT2PeJznrXPw2
fJ4/edit

Dr. Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology