Re: [gnso-whoissurvey-dt] Second Revised charter - for your input

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks for those changes.  They seem to adequately bridge the gap between an 
informal study and a rigorous study. 

> 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?  

I think that makes sense.

The other changes seem fine to me.

Thanks as well to Michael for his response.

a.

On 23 Aug 2011, at 15:02, Liz Gasster wrote:

> 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.
> 
> <WSDT Charter draft 23 Aug DB AD LG.doc>

------
Pick your poison: Kool-Aid or Hemlock!