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@lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/

_______________________________________________
Wp4 mailing list
Wp4@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4