A/HRC/27/45 representatives had expressed concern that none of the NAM proposals had been accepted, and the Secretariat had been called upon to clarify the voting procedure. NAM had expressed the view that while consensus must be the aim, voting might become necessary if, despite all efforts, consensus could not be reached. 56. The Chair proceeded to summarize the various proposals made and the discussions on the proposals. 57. NAM had proposed that, after completion of the first reading and in line with the mandate to consider, revise and refine the draft right to development criteria and corresponding operational subcriteria with a view to their endorsement, the Group recommend to the Human Rights Council that it proceed to the second reading at its sixteenth session and, in that regard, flagged the need for more time to be allocated to the Working Group. 58. In that respect, EU, the United States and Switzerland had stated that the issue of measurability must be clarified before proceeding to the second reading and that it was too early to discuss the conclusions and recommendations of the Group’s fifteenth session. 59. NAM, Algeria, Cuba and Pakistan had asserted that the Working Group had no mandate to discuss indicators, that the high-level task force had gone beyond its mandate by proposing indicators and that in no case could a matter outside the mandate of the Working Group be used as a condition for the fulfilment of the mandate given to it by the Human Rights Council. Pakistan and Indonesia had suggested that the issue of measurability be considered simultaneously with the second reading. NGOs expressed the view that the question of measurability would arise only in the implementation phase and that, given the subjective character of the right to development, indicators must be determined by the people themselves at the local and national levels and be based on their specific needs and requirements. A collective of NGOs suggested proceeding with the second reading with a parallel debate on indicators, using input from a pilot project that would seek to apply the proposed criteria and subcriteria, and from an expert group set up for the purpose. 60. NAM, Egypt and Sri Lanka had proposed an exchange of ideas on integration of the right to development in the post-2015 development agenda. South Africa had underlined the importance of supporting a right to development approach as opposed to the human rights-based approach to development, which focused on civil and political rights 61. EU, Switzerland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States were of the view that the ongoing discussions on the post-2015 agenda should not be prejudged or the process duplicated, and that all human rights, not just the right to development, were crucial to the post-2015 development agenda. Algeria, Cuba, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Tunisia, as well as the Association of World Citizens, had argued that many Human Rights Council resolutions already contained explicit language on the process and that the Working Group’s contributions, being more specific, would only complement the more general discussions and would be welcomed. 62. NAM had proposed that, while bearing in mind that completion of the first reading was the priority, a letter should be sent to relevant United Nations organizations and specialized agencies requesting them, when making their contributions, to relate their activities also to the post-2015 development agenda. 63. EU, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States had argued that United Nations organizations and specialized agencies should be free to decide on the content of their contributions. If a specific request was to be made to them, then it should also include a request to express their views on indicators. 14