The formal part of the process would be submitting an NNS proposal of type “Motion” under the topic “Governance” which has no payload data to be automatically executed (if accepted) but contains a simple motionText statement and a full description of the proposed intent to read and be accepted (or not) by the IC voting community.
Therefore the work mostly involves carefully describing the basis for, intent of, consequences, work required, etc of the proposal should it be accepted.
A clear example of this is illustrated in the Community Consideration: Explore Query Charging thread itself which began with an RFD (request for discussion) then was formed into a draft of the proposal text here which was then formally submitted to the NNS here as a proposal named “Motion for Query Stats Aggregation”.
This was accepted by majority vote and is now in a status of “Executed” which forms a commitment by the IC community to support implementation of that motion in the form of @stefan-kaestle and his team coding the canister query stats feature to support query charging.
If we (as the DeAI WG or @jeshli as the lead on this particular topic) want to make a formal proposal for a specific query charging model then I think we can take this proposal 123481 as a process template and also refer to it in the new proposal to show it is compatible with the already executed proposal 123481
Other than that procedural work I think the best approach is exactly what @jeshli has already initiated in the query charging thread which is to explain our rationale, provide use case and analysis and ask for community feedback and discussion. Then write a proposal description that is specific enough to be clearly understood and executed (by IC dev team) but not so specific that unnecessary technical details are enforced on the implementation
So TLDR: keep going as we are and form a clear concrete proposal that builds on prior work and discussion that could actually be executed by IC devs