ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-osc]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Ray Fassett <ray@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Avri Doria'" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-osc] FW: GNSO Operating Procedures Final Drafts
  • From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:16:27 +0200

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



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy