RE: [gnso-whois-study] list of studies with original hypotheses attached

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

Thanks Liz.  Whatever we do, if the group thinks we should do something
like this, we would need to do it in a cautious way that doesn't open
things up to delays.  I am thinking that we would simply ask for
proposers to simply comment whether or not we captured their hypothesis
(hyptheses) accurately and if not to communicate what we missed; and
like I said, give a very short turn-around time.  We would only need to
do it in those cases where we made material changes to the hypotheses or
where no hypotheses were stated.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Liz Gasster [mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 4:08 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] list of studies with original
hypotheses attached
        
        

        I have emails for many but not all of the submitters.  Glen and
I can check on whether the others can be obtained (I do not have email
addresses for study #s 5, 8, 12, 21-23).  Assuming so, we could solicit
their input directly, and I can coordinate once we have developed draft
hypotheses.  We should consider whether to try this with the GAC too?
It may be difficult for the GAC to respond quickly as a group but at
least GAC representatives would be given the opportunity to review what
we've done.  Thoughts on this are appreciated as well.  

         

        Liz

         

        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:50 PM
        To: Liz Gasster; gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] list of studies with original
hypotheses attached

         

        Very nicely and quickly done Liz. Thanks.

         

        Glen - would you please post this on the wiki; I'm sure I don't
even have to ask.

         

        Liz - are the email addresses for the submitters of the studies
readily available?  I am wondering whether the following would be a good
idea: in cases where we modified the hypotheses from what were
specificallly stated by the proposer (or not stated by the proposer) and
where the proposer is not in our group, send our drafted hypothesis to
the proposer for comment within 5-7 days?  My fear is that this will
complicate the process and I do not want to do that; at the same time,
it probably would be a useful action to take.  Thoughts from anyone on
the list are welcome regarding whether we should do this.

         

        Chuck

         

                 

                
________________________________


                From: owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
                Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 3:32 PM
                To: gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
                Subject: [gnso-whois-study] list of studies with
original hypotheses attached

                All, attached is a list of proposed studies that
includes the original hypotheses offered by each submitter.  Steve
Metalitz - please look at yours and edit as you like. Note again that
the study recommendations offered by the GAC did not include hypotheses,
these are left blank in the attached listing.

                 

                Please let me know if you have any corrections.  Thanks,
Liz