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