[Wp4] Discrete issue: Which bylaws formulation

[Greg Shatan]

I think that there has been broad opposition to "cherry-picking" human
rights.  I would apply this to the Ruggie principles as well.

Greg

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:

> Nigel overlooked the reference to my profession, when we say "Look at"
> it usually involves scalpels :-)-O
>
> So, how do the Ruggie principles look like without the subset?
>
> el
>
>
> On 2015-10-12 13:37, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> > Eberhard is misdirecting himself. We don't want to look at THAT subset.
> >
> > We should be looking at (in set theoretical terms) the relative
> > complement subset.
> >
> >
> >
> > N.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/10/15 12:27, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> >> Paul,
> >>
> >> I was not going to die in a ditch about the Ruggie principles, but why
> >> don't we look at your subset?
> >>
> >> el
> >>
> >> On 2015-10-11 23:03, Paul Twomey wrote:
> >>> Nigel
> >>>
> >>> I am of a similar view as Tatiana's below.
> >>>
> >>> My stated concern has always been with some subset sections of the
> >>> Ruggie principles.  Not necessarily with UDHR.
> >>>
> >>> Paul
> >> [...]
> >>
>
> --
> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
> el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
> PO Box 8421             \     /
> Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/
> _______________________________________________
> Wp4 mailing list
> Wp4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp4/attachments/20151012/bf78a2e5/attachment.html>