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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

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 <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 05:39:38 -0800
To: Stéphane Van Gelder 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx<mailto:philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>>, 
"ray@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx>" <ray@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>" 
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>