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

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

Thanks Julie,

Although I think it is helpful to have a redline version of the document, 
showing the various edits that have been made, I don't think the same is true 
for the motion, which has a section crossed out at the moment. Do you think it 
would be possible to just show the final version of the motion on the Wiki?

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 17 nov. 2010 à 15:40, Julie Hedlund a écrit :

> Stephane,
> 
> The revised motion is posted at: 
> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_november_motions, and the 
> revised document is posted here: 
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-15oct10-en.pdf.
>   Please let me know if you have any questions.
> 
> Thanks,
> Julie
> 
> 
> On 11/16/10 9:18 AM, "Stéphane Van Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Julie for explaining that.
>> 
>> Glen, please confirm when the new version is up. This is the version that 
>> everyone should refer to as far as the motion that I made is concerned. 
>> Please note, as I mentioned bfore, that this motion aims to remove the DOI 
>> requirement altogether. If that is not what people want to do, an 
>> alternative motion should be looked at.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> Le 16 nov. 2010 à 14:56, Julie Hedlund a écrit :
>> 
>>> Dear Stephane, Tim, and Wolf-Ulrich,
>>> 
>>> I see that there were indeed a couple of references remaining.  This was an 
>>> error in my drafting of the revised version without the DOI section.  I 
>>> removed the relevant sections and definition, but missed a couple of 
>>> references that were embedded in the text.  I should have caught these and 
>>> I am grateful that Wolf-Ulrich has found them and deleted them.  I will ask 
>>> Glen to post the corrected version.
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Julie
>>> 
>>> On 11/16/10 8:39 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx 
>>> <x-msg://241/tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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 
>>>> > 
>>>> >   
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>