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

["Vanda UOL" <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>