<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: RES: [gnso-osc] Re: [council] MOTION REFERRING TO THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATIONS PROCEDURES WORK TEAM (GCOT) RECOMMENDATIONS
- To: Vanda UOL <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: RES: [gnso-osc] Re: [council] MOTION REFERRING TO THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATIONS PROCEDURES WORK TEAM (GCOT) RECOMMENDATIONS
- From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:24:48 -0800
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|