Thanks Vanda. Wolf-Ulrich was kind enough to identify them and remove them. It is his corrected version that is posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-operating-procedures-revisions-15oct10-en..... Warm regards, Julie On 11/17/10 4:20 PM, "Vanda UOL" <vanda@uol.com.br> wrote: Thanks Julie, makes sense to remove the references. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 De: owner-gnso-osc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@icann.org] Em nome de Julie Hedlund Enviada em: terça-feira, 16 de novembro de 2010 11:57 Para: Tim Ruiz; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: philip.sheppard@aim.be; Ray Fassett; gnso-osc-ops; gnso-osc@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org Assunto: [gnso-osc] Re: [council] MOTION REFERRING TO THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATIONS PROCEDURES WORK TEAM (GCOT) RECOMMENDATIONS Dear Stephane, Tim, and Wolf-Ulrich, I see that there were indeed a couple of references remaining. This was an error in my drafting of the revised version without the DOI section. I removed the relevant sections and definition, but missed a couple of references that were embedded in the text. I should have caught these and I am grateful that Wolf-Ulrich has found them and deleted them. I will ask Glen to post the corrected version. Thank you. Best regards, Julie On 11/16/10 8:39 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote: 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 Date: Tue, November 16, 2010 6:04 am To: "" Cc: , , , ,

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