RE: [gnso-whois-study] updated matrix based on input from original study submitters
- To: "Liz Gasster" <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] updated matrix based on input from original study submitters
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:20:36 -0400
Thank you very much Liz. I made some minor changes to the meeting
agenda to reflect the comments received as well as your suggestion
regarding 'pearls of wisdom'. I strongly encourage others to comment on
Liz's suggestion, especially if you disagree with it. Also, please be
thinking about whether or not, even if we do not include any 'pearls of
wisdom', we should add any more notes to our report.
I updated the agenda on the wiki. I am okay with Liz's decision not to
update the wiki with the new table because the wiki does not provide an
easy way to show changes, but if others would rather see the wiki
updated please speak up. To facilitate our discussion of the
alternative hypotheses suggestions in our meeting, it would be helpful
if everyone would have the revised word document of the table available
during our call. I uploaded the file into the wiki so it will be easy
to access from the wiki.
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:58 PM
Subject: [gnso-whois-study] updated matrix based on input from
original study submitters
Attached is our updated Whois hypotheses matrix (in Word),
annotated with feedback from the original submitters of various studies.
In all I sent out 7 queries regarding 15 study suggestions.
I heard back from 5 people regarding 11 suggestions.
8 of the 11 reformulated hypotheses were confirmed as acceptable
by the original submitters. In 3 cases, the original submitters offered
alternative wording, highlighted in the attached document. These are
study suggestion numbers 8, 13 and 16. We should plan to discuss these
on Tuesday's call.
Note that for now I have NOT updated the wiki to reflect these
suggestions and would prefer not to do so unless the group would find
that particularly useful, in which case I am happy to update.
Separately, I reviewed all of the study suggestions to determine
whether additions should be made to add "pearls of wisdom" to certain
hypotheses. Upon review, while I note that there is useful detail
regarding methodology, nothing rises to the level relevant for the
Council report, though clearly various notes may be useful at a later
stage. Thanks for indulging me the chance to make sure.