RE: [council] MOTION REFERRING TO THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATIONS PROCEDURES WORK TEAM (GCOT) RECOMMENDATIONS

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

What am I missing? I don't see any difference in the two versions?


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] MOTION REFERRING TO THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATIONS
> PROCEDURES WORK TEAM (GCOT) RECOMMENDATIONS
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, November 16, 2010 6:04 am
> To: "<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>" <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <ray@xxxxxxxxx>,
> <gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx>,        <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>,
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Good catch Wolf.
> 
> I see no problem in accepting the amendment as friendly.
> 
> I am more perplexed at the references to the DOI that were still in the 
> document you edited.
> 
> Ray, Philip, could you please enlighten us as to whether those were just 
> overlooked or whether the GCOT and the OSC planned to leave them in there?
> 
> As a reminder, the aim of my motion is to completely remove the DOI 
> obligations from the Op Procs as discussed.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 16 nov. 2010 à 11:39,   a écrit :
> 
> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> The first "Resolved" of the a.m. motion (see 
> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_november_motions) reads:
> 
>         RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts these deliverables submitted 
> by the GCOT and approved by the OSC and directs Staff to post the 
> aforementioned document for thirty (30) days in the ICANN Public Comment 
> Forum.
> I wonder whether the GCOT has submitted and the OSC has approved the proposed 
> revisions to section 5.0 in the version presented. To my knowledge the OSC 
> approval was given including  the DOI. In this case I'd like to suggest a 
> friendly amendment as follows:
>         RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts these deliverables submitted 
> by the GCOT and approved by the OSC and directs Staff to post the 
> aforementioned document for thirty (30) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum
> Philp's and Ray's advise would be helpful.
> 
> There are still references to DOI left in the revision which I've removed 
> (see attached).
> 
> 
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>