RE: RE: [gnso-whoissurvey-dt] Second Revised charter - for your input
Hi All, Thanks for all the inputs so far. Michael and I have consulted and I have prepared a revised draft with new language focused on adopting Don's and Avri's suggestions. My draft revised text is redlined and the comments are still there so that you can compare whether these changes seem ok to you. I would also appreciate further guidance on three points: 1. The new target milestone dates. The previous milestone dates were noted as unrealistic -- do these revised dates work or should we adopt other target dates? This is just a suggestion that takes into account Avri's observation about time frames. Please suggest specific alternatives if you think this is still unworkable. 2. The charter proposes an independent review of the questions before survey launch. This is fine but there will need to be budget allocated for this review, and a process for selecting a reviewer. Staff will be drafting a motion requesting that the Council approve the charter once the group approves it, this group can request funding in that motion (or note that a funding request will be forthcoming), but ICANN must also approve funding as well. For now we do not know what this might cost. The question is -- what more would you like to see in the charter to define this process, including making a determination of the budget amount to request, and how a reviewer should be selected? Should this work be assigned to a subgroup to determine? 3. Many tasks previously in Part A #4 have now been moved to Part A #1. Should the remaining task of #4 be moved into Part B? Many thanks! Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-whoissurvey-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 6:11 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. Attachment:
WSDT Charter draft 23 Aug DB AD LG.doc
|