Hi Rafik, Presumably this will be taken up in the next round, so I'd like to ask to be added to the ad-hoc group please. Thanks, and best regards, Tamir On 9/10/2015 10:44 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Rafik > > These are great comments, but since DIDP is Workstream 2 I don’t think > it should be included in this round. > > This is the final or next-to-final CCWG WS 1 proposal we are > commenting on, and we are trying to emphasize some critical aspects of > WS1 Proposal that need to be changed. I think it detracts from that a > bit to raise DIDP unless there is some decision that will be taken > regarding DIDP in this round. > > > > --MM > > > > > > *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 9, 2015 10:13 PM > *To:* Mueller, Milton L > *Cc:* [log in to unmask]; Michael Karanicolas > *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Last CCWG comments last call > > > > Hi Milton, > > > > thanks for solving the HR language . > > On other hand, there is a proposal about DIDP from Michael Karanicolas > ,to be added to our comment, since we would like to work on that in > workstream2 and we are having an ad-hoc group of NCSG members > interested in this topic. > > > > the proposal is attached. comments and edits are welcome. > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > 2015-09-08 11:28 GMT+09:00 Mueller, Milton L > <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>: > > OK, I have made some minor modifications based on these > discussions, the only significant one related to human rights. The > new language reads: > > > > 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, “Within its > mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect > internationally recognized fundamental human rights.” > > > > With one member organization exception, NCSG tends toward support > for the second, more general formulation. The first formulation is > too limited because other human rights, such as privacy, are > relevant to ICANN policies. We do, however, recognize that a > generic reference to human rights might not work as effectively as > more specific requirements, and that freedom of expression and > privacy are two human rights most directly relevant to ICANN’s > policy activity. Our preference, therefore, would be to formulate > the commitment this way: > > > “Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed > to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights, in > particular freedom of expression and privacy.” > > > > I hope the policy committee can approve the whole document and get > it submitted to the CCWG public comment period tomorrow. > > > > --MM > > > > *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *William Drake > *Sent:* Monday, September 7, 2015 7:35 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] CCWG comments last call > > > > > > On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:22 AM, Tapani Tarvainen > <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > > > compromise phrasing like "... human rights, in particular > freedom of expression and privacy" might work. > > > > Works for me, per the F2F discussions with other stakeholders > since summer 2014. > > > > Bill > > >