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

["Eulgen, Lee J." <LEulgen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Liz and Chuck.  The IPC says yes and yes.

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:42 AM
To: Liz Gasster; gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-dt] Follow up explanation on 2 outstanding WHOIS 
study-related questions raised on the last call
Importance: High

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:

 1.
Should we eliminate the inclusion of GAC Data Set 1 from the motion?
 2.
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