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
>