RE: [gnso-whois-dt] Follow up explanation on 2 outstanding WHOIS study-related questions raised on the last call

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Although I do not support spending time or money on any of this, it
seems that if the Council is going to go forward with it then cost and
feasibility estimates of both GAC data sets should be a part of it.

Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-dt] Follow up explanation on 2 outstanding
WHOIS study-related questions raised on the last call
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, January 27, 2009 10:42 am
To: "Liz Gasster" <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

Thanks Liz.  So that we can finalize the draft motion this week, it
would be very helpful if everyone would respond to the two questions Liz
raises:

+ Should we eliminate the inclusion of GAC Data Set 1 from the motion?

+ Should we eliminate the asterisks in the charts?  (I don't think this
affects the motions.)


 
Chuck

From: owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:35 AM
To: gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-whois-dt] Follow up explanation on 2 outstanding WHOIS
study-related questions raised on the last call



All,

On the last WHOIS call, two questions were raised that I promised to
look into.  Those questions, and my further explanation/research, are
provided below:

1.       The group noted that we had a clear entry for “GAC data set
2” listed in our hypotheses chart (associated with Study Suggestion #
21) but that there was no entry for “GAC data set 1” which was also
suggested by the GAC in its 16 April 2008 letter.  I reviewed the
transcript for the meeting when the working group reviewed this (5
August 2008) and found that the group concluded that those two data sets
are not something from which one could draw hypotheses, but rather they
are the data that may need to be collected  in order to test any
hypothesis.  Thus, the group agreed to indicate in note 4 of the 26
August Hypotheses Report that the GAC had suggested two data sets to be
collected, and to list those two data sets there “so that it shows we
gave recognition to the data sets [the GAC] requested”, but not to
treat them as separate study requests. With regard to data set 2, the
group decided to display the entry in two places: 1) in note 4 along
with GAC data set 1; and 2) also note it along with study # 21, because
the data referenced by the GAC in data set 2 would be needed in order to
conduct study #21.  Thus, I think the intent of the group was not to
treat the GAC data sets as separate studies, but rather as data that may
be needed for other studies.  Therefore it may make sense to delete that
“study” from the draft resolution that is circulating.

2.       The charts we currently have posted display asterisks following
certain study numbers and we somehow lost the key to what was meant by
those references.  I located the key and it has been added to the wiki
and is copied below.  We may decide that these references are no longer
needed but I will defer to the group on that.
*BC recommends Staff & external estimates.
**The IPC recommends that B & D be combined.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Thanks, Liz