[CCWG-ACCT] so what is the current outcome on human rights.

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Avri,

you are right.

As a matter of fact, while thinking about this in the car this morning, I have decided to chang my mind:

1) It must go into WS1

2) I can live with Keith's language if 

a) we add the words "in particular", "such as for example" or my personal favourite "inter alia"; AND

b) add the words "due process" 

I only have the iPhone in my meeting but will propose a complete sentence later in the morning.

el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6


> On Jul 31, 2015, at 07:04, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Not only would we lose leverage, but until such time as WS2 completed
> its work there would be no protection of human rights and especially no
> protection for freedom of expression and the free flow of knowledge.
> 
> avri
> 
>> On 31-Jul-15 07:31, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
>> No,
>> 
>> we don't.
>> 
>> In terms of the Charter need to determine whether we have Full
>> Consensus, Consensus or enough objections to constitut No Consensus of
>> the members appointed by the chartering AC/SOs. 
>> 
>> The participants do not take part in this determination and/or any
>> related polls.
>> 
>> Qualifying language has the restrictive effect of excluding what is
>> not mentioned. Hence I will only accept an unqualified requirement. 
>> 
>> This can go into WS2 but we then loose leverage.
>> 
>> el
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 30, 2015, at 23:59, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear All
>>> Grec ,s proposal got 11 in favour and 8 against( those voted for
>>> Keith, s proposal)
>>> Keith,s proposal got 8 in favour and 11 against( those voted for
>>> Grec, s proposal)
>>> My proposal got 8 in favour and 4 against
>>> We thus need to identify the proposal that gained a more clear majority
>>> Kavouss    
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On 31 Jul 2015, at 07:37, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org
>>>> <mailto:JZuck at actonline.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Good question! The waters got muddy at the end. I appears as though
>>>> there was a simple majority in favor of something being in there
>>>> and, given that, a simple majority in favor of Greg's language. I
>>>> don't know what that means for the draft that will go out to the
>>>> public. There was talk of another poll on the listserv to capture
>>>> more folks.
>>>> 
>>>> 80% sure you don't need to draft anything and Greg will need to
>>>> draft an inline objection on behalf of part of the CSG....but who knows?
>>>> 
>>>> Jonathan Zuck
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150731/6046c1cd/attachment.html>