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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Got it. Thanks Marika. We should all keep in mind that html or rich text
in emails will not get consistently translated, especially for those of
us who still often work from text based email.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] MOTION REFERRING TO THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATIONS
> PROCEDURES WORK TEAM (GCOT) RECOMMENDATIONS
> From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, November 16, 2010 7:57 am
> To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane Van
> Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "ray@xxxxxxxxx"
> <ray@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx>,
> "gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx" <KnobenW@telek
> 
> Tim,
> 
> For some reason, the stricken language in Wolf's email does not appear in the 
> version you received (this might have something to do with your email 
> settings?). Wolf's version proposes to strike the following words from the 
> resolved clause: submitted by the GCOT and approved by the OSC so that it 
> would read 'RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts these deliverables and 
> directs Staff to post the aforementioned document for thirty (30) days in the 
> ICANN Public Comment Forum.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> Marika  
> 
> From:  Tim Ruiz 
> Date:  Tue, 16 Nov 2010 05:39:38 -0800
> To:  Stéphane Van Gelder 
> Cc:  Philip Sheppard , "ray@xxxxxxxxx" , "gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx" , 
> "gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx" , "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" , "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx" 
> Subject:  RE: [council] MOTION REFERRING TO THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATIONS 
> PROCEDURES WORK TEAM (GCOT) RECOMMENDATIONS
> 
> 
> 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
> > Date: Tue, November 16, 2010 6:04 am
> > To: "" 
> > Cc: , ,
> > ,        ,
> > 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>