- We agree on the first point.

- With respect to the second point - we are making reference to our report and ask the drafters to ensure that this is adequately covered. Therefore, there should not be the risk of going beyond the recommendations our group has made. In my view, we could fix the concerns some of you raised by reframing the Issues paragraph as follows:

"Issue: Concerns were raised regarding use of the term “may”. Some felt this did not properly implement the recommendations of the CCWG-Accountability on this topic which include:"

This tweak would remove reference to the word „shall“ and just request the lawyers to double-check whether our recommendations are covered.    

- On the third point: Greg put additional information on the record showing that the language is not ambiguous. This could be pointed to if need be. Thus, we could potentially drop that point. 

I have attached an updated version. 

Please note that our comment shall encourage the drafters to take a second look at the document based on our feedback. If concerns are raised or language is perceived to be unclear, that is something we can and should raise. I trust that the legal teams have good reason for why they framed things as they did in the draft we now comment on. Still, the perception that some have justifies that these concerns are being brought up and reviewed. 

We will now let the discussion go on and file our comment a bit late. I am sure it will still be taken into account.

Thanks and kind regards,

Thomas