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

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

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> 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> 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

[...]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150731/0dc8febd/attachment.html>