[Wp4] Fwd: Re: [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi,

Just so it's clear, the "major change" I refer is related to not changing
the texts that has been included in WS1 proposal during WS2.

So if it's agreed in WS1 that certain things will be done, it won't be good
enough to change those in WS2 and that's one of the reason why anything
that goes into WS1 should be what has agreed to be needed and realistic.

I don't really care whether it's the same thing with what Greg wrote but
it's one of my rationale for adding a +1 to his statement.

Hope that helps.

Regards
On 6 Aug 2015 11:11 pm, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:

> I am not sure that Greg's statement can be read as "no major change". I
> fully support his assessment of where we are (which is that we come from
> different starting points).
>
>
> We need to understand (and if necessary define) what the objective is.
>
> Then we need to come to consensus on a high-level statement to incorporate
> as a By-Law.
>
> Then, in WS2, we must "give colour and depth" to the high-level statement.
>
>
>
> On 06-Aug-15 15:12, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I like to add my +1 to Greg on this one; Committing to a general HR
>>> statement that is not clearly scored/defined could be dangerous,
>>> especially as we would not like any major change to be done on
>>> anything that has been agreed upon in WS1
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
> Wp4 mailing list
> Wp4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp4/attachments/20150807/49aba93c/attachment.html>