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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Bill.  My recollection is that Tim later communicated that he was
somewhat flexible regarding data set 1.  Do you concur with that?

Chuck 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 5:15 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-whois-dt] Follow up explanation on 2 
> outstanding WHOIS study-related questions raised on the last call
> 
> 
> I agree with both halves of Tim's statement.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Jan 27, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>    Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, 
> http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
> ***********************************************************
> 
> 
>