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 >