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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

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, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
> 
> <<GNSO Operating Procedures v2 Section 5 Proposed Revisions without DOI 15 
> Oct 2010 redline (WUK_edit).doc>>
> 
> <GNSO Operating Procedures v2 Section 5 Proposed Revisions without DOI 15 Oct 
> 2010 redline (WUK_edit).doc>