RE: RE: [gnso-whoissurvey-dt] Revised charter for your review (please disregard last version)

["Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Avri,

Always thrilled to have an experienced voice weigh in.

I can't really speak to the Whois Requirements report content and the
methodolgy of gathering those requirements  directly, as I was not involved
in that part of the process.  However, we did discuss at the very first
meeting that there are active stakeholders on the subject of whois
requirements who are continuing to push the ball forward.  We do not want to
lose that progress in any survey effort, so we have determined to try and do
the following:

We are using three working sub-groups to prepare the materials for the
survey, one of the group's led by Don, has the mission of going back to
known stakeholders, (and attempt to identify additionals stakeholders), to
review our requirements list with.  If they receive additional or refined
requirements, we intend to try and incoporate those considerations in the
whois requirements survey.

We are not just going to turn the existing whois requirements report into a
survey, we recognize this will likely overlook important considerations.

I am sure Don would find your thoughts on the list of stakeholders that
should be consulted most helpful!

Best Regards,

Michael Young
M:+1-647-289-1220

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: August-21-11 9:11 PM
To: gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: RE: [gnso-whoissurvey-dt] Revised charter for your review
(please disregard last version)

Hi,

1st: I apologize for not making any of the meeting, but non of them where
scheduled at a time when I could make it.
2nd: i apologize for having opinions even though i was never  able to make
it to any meetings.

My primary concern with the plan is that the write up for task a and the
schedule seem to preclude any sense of scientific validty for the study.  I
know that you used Chuck's plan for the process, but if you recall, my main
disagreement with Chuck;s proposal had to do with the need for rigor in the
study.  I am fully convinced that any study done without proper scientific
methodology is essentially worthless and become yet another bit of creative
ambiguity that can be used by all sides to buttress their arguments.

I also see no mention of coordination with the work being done by the
GNSO/SSAC IRDWG.

I have added some comments to Don's edited version.

a.