[council] MOTION REFERRING TO THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATIONS PROCEDURES WORK TEAM (GCOT) RECOMMENDATIONS

[Tim Ruiz]

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<stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
> Date: Tue, November 16, 2010 6:04 am
> To: "<KnobenW at telekom.de>" <KnobenW at telekom.de>
> Cc: <philip.sheppard at aim.be>, <ray at goto.jobs>,
> <gnso-osc-ops at icann.org>,        <gnso-osc at icann.org>,
> <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 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 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20101116/d396186f/attachment.html>