<div><div dir="auto">Avri,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks for your explanation. I understand where you and Nigel are each coming from now.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I agree with your points regarding non-profits and Ruggie.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Reading Nigel's email, I thought he was advancing the strawman that the only reason Ruggie is a bad fit for ICANN is that it's a non-profit. My goal was to point out that ICANN's unique role makes it unlike a business at all (non-profit or for-profit), and that this is the primary reason Ruggie doesn't fit.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But I agree that the nonprofit status poses additional challenges.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Finally, none of this is to say that Ruggie should not be considered in the implementation of the Human Rights Core Value -- which is already supported in the Considerations portion of the document.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It is to say that Ruggie should not be used to interpret the meaning of the Bylaw itself.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Greg</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:30 PM avri doria <<a href="mailto:avri@apc.org">avri@apc.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
I disagree. It is one of the factors that makes certain parts of the<br>
Guidelines less appropriate for ICANN than for GE. One of the things<br>
several of us attempted during the long course of the subgroup, before<br>
the matter was referred to the plenary, was to get Ruggie to to produce<br>
an explanatory version specific for Not-for-profit as he has done for<br>
other groups.<br>
<br>
So my two recommended edits, i.e inclusion of the "not-for-profit"<br>
modifier and the phrase "as appropriate" were in recognition of this<br>
being the case.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 29-Sep-17 03:23, Nigel Roberts wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 29/09/17 07:23, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
>> Whether ICANN is non-profit or not is beside the point. That is not<br>
>> the issue.<br>
> Agreed. It is entirely beside the point and has no place in any<br>
> statement as if it did.<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>