Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Council Resolution Amendment

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

ok I have not recieved the message from the GNSO list
regards
Olga

2010/6/21 Jaime B Wagner <j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  I already sent Olga. Thought it was ok.
>
>
>
> Jaime Wagner
> j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> cel: +55(51)8126-0916
>
> dir: +55(51)3219-5955
>
>
>
> *De:* owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] *Em
> nome de *Olga Cavalli
> *Enviada em:* segunda-feira, 21 de junho de 2010 05:17
> *Para:* Jaime B Wagner
> *Cc:* Ken Bour; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> *Assunto:* Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Council Resolution Amendment
>
>
>
> Thanks Jaime.
> Ken can you draft it? and then I second...
> Regards
> Olga
>
> 2010/6/21 Jaime B Wagner <j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I can make the motion
>
>
>
> Jaime Wagner
> j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> cel: +55(51)8126-0916
>
> dir: +55(51)3219-5955
>
>
>
> *De:* owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] *Em
> nome de *Gomes, Chuck
> *Enviada em:* segunda-feira, 21 de junho de 2010 03:31
> *Para:* Ken Bour; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> *Assunto:* RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Council Resolution Amendment
>
>
>
> We need the maker of the motion to make this change or someone else to
> propose an amendment, which I assume will be friendly.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Ken Bour
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 20, 2010 11:14 AM
> *To:* gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Council Resolution Amendment
>
>
>
> Olga and WPM Team Members:
>
>
>
> I made a modest change to the Council Resolution because we ended up with
> 14 Eligible Projects vs. 15 (at the end of Steps 1 and 2).   If you’ll
> recall, IDNF was transferred from Eligible to Ineligible during the group
> ratings session on 19 June.
>
>
>
> I hope these wording changes are acceptable.
>
>
>
> Note that, according to my recollection, there was no final agreement to
> post these ratings for public comment, but that topic would be discussed by
> the Council at the 23 June session.
>
>
>
> Ken
>
> ===
>
> *GNSO COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Re: Work Prioritization)
> *
> WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 April 2010 meeting, adopted a resolution
> and timeline<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions>to 
> conduct its first Work Prioritization effort according to a set of
> procedures (proposed Chapter 6 and 
> ANNEX<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf>)
> recommended by the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT);
>
> WHEREAS, the adopted timeline outlined four major process steps the first
> three of which have been completed as follows:
>
> 1)      Step 1:  ICANN Policy Staff prepared and delivered to the GNSO
> Council a recommended Work Prioritization Project 
> List<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-en.pdf>
>  (v1.0),
> including a Cover 
> Letter<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/cover-letter-work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-en.pdf>,
> on 30 April 2010 [Council approved on 20 May 
> 2010<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/>
> ]
>
> 2)      Step 2:  Eighteen Councilors and one Liaison (19 total) submitted
> individual Value Ratings for all 15 Eligible Projects (approved in Step 1)
> on or before 9 June (deadline extended from 7 June), which were then
> successfully processed and aggregated by Staff for input to Step 3;
>
> 3)      Step 3:  The GNSO Council held a Work Prioritization group
> discussion session on 19 June 2010 in Brussels and successfully finalized a
> set of Value Ratings for 14 Eligible Projects (Note:  the IDNF project was
> determined by the Council to be “Ineligible”);
>
> NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
>
> RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the GNSO Work Prioritization Value
> Ratings finalized in its group discussion session held on 19 June 2010 and
> directs Staff to publish those Value Ratings on the GNSO website according
> to Step 4 of the adopted timeline.
>
>
>
>
>