Thanks Jorge. The original text to which you objected was: The group feels the current proposed wording is a balanced consensus between the different opinions held in the ICANN community, particularly concerning the remit of ICANN’s Mission. The text that was then adapted (also based on your comments) and which was discussed in the call was: The conclusion of the Subgroup is that the current proposed wording is a careful balance between the different opinions held in the ICANN community, particularly considering the remit of ICANN’s Mission. The text you propose is: The group feels the current proposed wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different opinions held in the ICANN community. Let's hear what other on the list think about this proposed text. Best, Niels On 08/23/2017 01:18 PM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
As to how you presented *my alternative* text to paragraph 5 of the draft message to the CCWG /(//" The group feels the current proposed wording is a minimum common denominator text between the different opinions held in the ICANN community./”, see in my Emails sent on August 16^th to the list and sent again yesterday before the call)the "adobe call replay" shows that _it was not mentioned and therefore not handled as an alternative_.
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9