<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: Petition to form a new ICANN constituency</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hi everyone,<BR>
<BR>
For me the distinction is that "Vodafone" is driven by its owners/shareholders to make profits - there is a huge and very clear distinction between for profit and not for profit organisations in my view having worked for both.<BR>
<BR>
Its Foundation etc would be there because of current "good corporate practice" to demonstrate Corporate Social Responsibility in its Annual Report<BR>
<BR>
cheers<BR>
<BR>
Rosemary<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: NCSG-NCUC on behalf of Nuno Garcia<BR>
Sent: Wed 11/10/2010 2:45 AM<BR>
To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<BR>
Subject: Re: Petition to form a new ICANN constituency<BR>
<BR>
Avri. you are looking at both organizations the way they want you to.<BR>
Vodafone, as many other companies has a foundation that helps needed people,<BR>
and I'm pretty sure that you would agree that some salaries and benefits<BR>
from Red Cross executives can touch the limit of the obscene.<BR>
<BR>
When you look under the hood, you may find out that the differences are not<BR>
that significative.<BR>
<BR>
Please note, I'm not against companies having foundations or profits, nor<BR>
against Red Cross paying its employees, far from that. Its just that holding<BR>
a decision position may not be compatible with some naif points of view.<BR>
<BR>
And I would say that our different points of view are quite clear by now on<BR>
this issue.<BR>
<BR>
Best regards,<BR>
<BR>
Nuno<BR>
<BR>
On 9 November 2010 14:36, Avri Doria <avri@ltu.se> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> On 9 Nov 2010, at 05:18, Nuno Garcia wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> > Red Cross, for one. How can one distinguish Red Cross from, let us say,<BR>
> Vodafone? Probably the single point of distinction is that Red Cross does<BR>
> accept volunteer work (and Vodafone does not). And of course, the types of<BR>
> services they render (but this distinguishes all other organizations,<BR>
> right?). Yet, they only render services to the communities that are their<BR>
> target if and when someone funds these services.<BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> I think that the distinction are far greater that that.<BR>
><BR>
> On sells a commercial service and is oriented to making profits for<BR>
> investors but charging customers fees and they provide a service based on an<BR>
> agreement with customers.<BR>
><BR>
> The other has a mission of helping people in disastrous situations and gets<BR>
> it work done by asking for donations and provide a service based on dire<BR>
> need.<BR>
><BR>
> I have no problem telling the difference between them.<BR>
><BR>
> a.<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>