I hope that the WG seeks the assistance of NCUC in their
research so as to avoid a duplication of efforts.
I found it interesting to read in "Deliverables" (page 3
of 4 , 2nd bullet, last sentence): it basically states that
the GAC need not agree with the findings / recommendations
of the WG. In such a case the WG would have to reconsider or
revise its proposals.
This provision ( or proviso) does not seem unusual except
that the principles of HRs are not universal to all the
members of the GAC. Some countries are known to have a poor
record on HR.
In otherwords the WG would probably draft a robust
statement on HR ( eg right to privacy, data protection,
freedom of expression , openness etc etc) which statement
would bind future GAC behaviour - it'll be adopted by GAC
as their position on HR for all times.
How likely would member states that are known offenders
of Human rights seek to agree to such a HR statement? Such
a statement could be inconsistent with their national laws
and policies.
Lets hope that this is not the case.
regards
Karel