Kristina and All, Oops, there are too many words. This is the current language: Further resolved that ICANN staff be required to include all individual elements in the Whois data which surveyed sources in the descriptive study report have been misused are included in study analysis, and are not discarded or otherwise eliminated if the actual data source is unclear or multiple possible sources are found during online search verification. See if this is clearer to understand, if not gracefully written (edits in caps/strikethroughs): Further resolved that ICANN staff be required to include all individual elements in the Whois data which surveyed sources in the descriptive study IDENTIFY AS HAVING BEEN misused are included in study analysis, and are not discarded or otherwise eliminated if the actual data source is unclear or multiple possible sources are found during online search verification. Does this help? (I can send around an edited version of the amendment) but wanted to verify first. Liz From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 9:45 AM To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Council GNSO Subject: [council] RE: Amendment to Motion to Pursue Whois Study # 1 It could be sleep deprivation, but the third "Further resolved" doesn't seem to make any sense. Is it missing any words or is it me? ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 11:20 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Amendment to Motion to Pursue Whois Study # 1 Importance: High On behalf of the RySG, I would like to propose an amended version of the motion to proceed with Whois Study # 1 on misuse. The proposed changes are highlighted in the attached file. <<Motion Amendment for GNSO Council WHOIS Study 1 - 4 Aug 2010.docx>> In my role as chair, I would like to ask Mike Rodenbaugh, who made the original motion, and Terry Davis, who seconded the motion, if they would consider the amendments friendly. Chuck