RE: [gnso-osc] FW: GNSO Operating Procedures Final Drafts

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree.  A lot clearer.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 5:16 AM
> To: Ray Fassett; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-osc] FW: GNSO Operating Procedures Final Drafts
> 
> Thanks Ray,
> 
> I think that makes it a lot clearer.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> Le 13/09/09 23:50, « Ray Fassett » <ray@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> > Does the language below make things clearer?
> > 
> > iii. The leading candidate will be defined as the one with 
> the highest 
> > score.  The score will be determined by adding together the voting 
> > percentages attained from each house.  The highest percentage 
> > attainable in each house is 100.  Thus the maximum score a 
> candidate 
> > can achieve is 200 as a result of attaining 100% of the 
> votes from the 
> > contracted party house and 100% from the non-contracted 
> party house (100% + 100% = score of 200).
> > 
> > Ray
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 4:16 PM
> > To: Avri Doria; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Ray Fassett
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] FW: GNSO Operating Procedures Final Drafts
> > Importance: High
> > 
> > Thanks Avri. Yes, I think people who understand the process 
> like we do 
> > won't have any need for any further explanation but, as I 
> pointed out 
> > and you seem to agree, the doc would be much easier to 
> grasp for the 
> > non ICANN insiders if this was explicitly stated in it.
> > 
> > Once again, just a small thing but one which may help make the doc 
> > more readable.
> > 
> > Stéphane
> > 
> > 
> > Le 13/09/09 22:07, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
> > 
> >> 
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> quick answer(not that this help the doc in itself)
> >> 
> >> 100% in contracted parties house + 100% in non-contracted parties 
> >> house = maximum of 200 possible score.
> >> 
> >> a.
> >> 
> >> On 13 Sep 2009, at 20:53, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Thanks Chuck,
> >>> 
> >>> Just one small comment on article 4.1.b.iii which seems 
> unclear to 
> >>> me in the way it¹s written. It makes it hard for anyone not well 
> >>> versed in the voting system to understand where the 200 
> score comes 
> >>> from.
> >>> 
> >>> Otherwise the document looks fine.
> >>> 
> >>> Stéphane
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature