<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>Tim,</div><div><br></div><div>For some reason, the stricken language in Wolf's email does not appear in the version you received (this might have something to do with your email settings?). Wolf's version proposes to strike the following words from the resolved clause: submitted by the GCOT and approved by the OSC so that it would read 'RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council accepts these deliverables and directs Staff to post the aforementioned document for thirty (30) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium; ">Best regards,</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium; font-family: Calibri; "><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium; "></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium; font-family: Calibri; ">Marika </span> </div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Tim Ruiz <<a href="mailto:tim@godaddy.com">tim@godaddy.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Tue, 16 Nov 2010 05:39:38 -0800<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> Stéphane Van Gelder <<a href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com">stephane.vangelder@indom.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span> Philip Sheppard <<a href="mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be">philip.sheppard@aim.be</a>>, "<a href="mailto:ray@goto.jobs">ray@goto.jobs</a>" <<a href="mailto:ray@goto.jobs">ray@goto.jobs</a>>, "<a href="mailto:gnso-osc-ops@icann.org">gnso-osc-ops@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-osc-ops@icann.org">gnso-osc-ops@icann.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:gnso-osc@icann.org">gnso-osc@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-osc@icann.org">gnso-osc@icann.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de">KnobenW@telekom.de</a>" <<a href="mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de">KnobenW@telekom.de</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> RE: [council] MOTION REFERRING TO THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATIONS PROCEDURES WORK TEAM (GCOT) RECOMMENDATIONS<br></div><div><br></div>What am I missing? I don't see any difference in the two versions?<br><br><br>
Tim<br><br>
> -------- Original Message --------<br>
> Subject: Re: [council] MOTION REFERRING TO THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATIONS<br>
> PROCEDURES WORK TEAM (GCOT) RECOMMENDATIONS<br>
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com><br>
> Date: Tue, November 16, 2010 6:04 am<br>
> To: "<knobenw@telekom.de>" <knobenw@telekom.de><br>
> Cc: <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, <ray@goto.jobs>,<br>
> <gnso-osc-ops@icann.org>, <gnso-osc@icann.org>,<br>
> <council@gnso.icann.org><br>
> <br>
> Good catch Wolf.<br>
> <br>
> I see no problem in accepting the amendment as friendly.<br>
> <br>
> I am more perplexed at the references to the DOI that were still in the document you edited.<br>
> <br>
> 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?<br>
> <br>
> As a reminder, the aim of my motion is to completely remove the DOI obligations from the Op Procs as discussed.<br>
> <br>
> Stéphane<br>
> <br>
> Le 16 nov. 2010 à 11:39, a écrit :<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Colleagues,<br>
> <br>
> The first "Resolved" of the a.m. motion (see <a href="https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_november_motions">https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_november_motions</a>) reads:<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> 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:<br>
> 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<br>
> Philp's and Ray's advise would be helpful.<br>
> <br>
> There are still references to DOI left in the revision which I've removed (see attached).<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br><br></council@gnso.icann.org></gnso-osc@icann.org></gnso-osc-ops@icann.org></ray@goto.jobs></philip.sheppard@aim.be></knobenw@telekom.de></knobenw@telekom.de></stephane.vangelder@indom.com></span></body></html>