Kristina, This topic is going to be discussed in the GCOT meeting at 2:00 p.m. today afternoon. If you can please attend or let us know the substitute motion in advance. Other topics with regards to the rules of procedure are: * Requirement of Chair candidate to a member of Council? * How to dismiss a Chair (what conditions)? * Should absentee voting be expanded? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2009 02:00 An: Rosette, Kristina; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Motion to Adopt Updated Council Operating Procedures The motion to amend the motion specifically deals with the abstention issue. If the amendment does not pass, then we could add language like that. Chuck _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 8:51 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Motion to Adopt Updated Council Operating Procedures All, It is my understanding from our discussion yesterday that we had rough consensus on voting to adopt the updated Council Operating Procedures, but to state in the motion that certain areas remain outstanding (e.g., abstentions) and to require that those areas be priority work to be completed by a date certain. Two questions: 1. Is that correct? 2. What areas, other than abstentions, remain outstanding? I'll start drafting a substitute motion once I've heard back from enough of you so that I'm comfortable I'm on the right track. K

Hi, I put it in, but reworded it a bit. I think it still says the same thing, but please confirm. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?28_oct_motions a. On 27 Oct 2009, at 16:13, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:

To cover the ongoing discussion it is intended to withdraw the motion on the amendment and amend the motion itself in the way as attached. I'll insert a revision deadline after having coordinated with the work team.

Is that acceptable?

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2009 02:00 An: Rosette, Kristina; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Motion to Adopt Updated Council Operating Procedures

The motion to amend the motion specifically deals with the abstention issue. If the amendment does not pass, then we could add language like that.

Chuck

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 8:51 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Motion to Adopt Updated Council Operating Procedures

All,

It is my understanding from our discussion yesterday that we had rough consensus on voting to adopt the updated Council Operating Procedures, but to state in the motion that certain areas remain outstanding (e.g., abstentions) and to require that those areas be priority work to be completed by a date certain.

Two questions:

1. Is that correct?

2. What areas, other than abstentions, remain outstanding?

I'll start drafting a substitute motion once I've heard back from enough of you so that I'm comfortable I'm on the right track.

K

<Motion-RoP_draft_rev.doc>