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

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Vanda.  Wolf-Ulrich was kind enough to identify them and remove them.  
It is his corrected version that is posted at: 
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-15oct10-en.pdf.

Warm regards,

Julie


On 11/17/10 4:20 PM, "Vanda UOL" <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks Julie, makes sense to remove the references.


Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
IT Trend
Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8
01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil
Tel + 5511 3266.6253
Mob + 55118181.1464


De: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] Em nome de Julie 
Hedlund
Enviada em: terça-feira, 16 de novembro de 2010 11:57
Para: Tim Ruiz; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Cc: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx; Ray Fassett; gnso-osc-ops; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Assunto: [gnso-osc] Re: [council] MOTION REFERRING TO THE GNSO COUNCIL 
OPERATIONS PROCEDURES WORK TEAM (GCOT) RECOMMENDATIONS

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> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>