[Ws2-staff_acct] Consensus Call for sending Rev 1.5 to the full meeting for a first reading.
Hi, Attached is version 1.6 of the Staff Accountability report. It is being submitted for a first reading in the full WS2 meeting. This will be the group's second attempt to do so. We have, since the first failed reading, discussed the issues that came out from that reading and have made extensive changes to the recommendations and their wording. The report has received consensus from the subgroup in all aspects but one. Due to the limited number of people participating in out last meetings we felt that we could not resolve that issue without a wider conversation. Currently recommendation 4a reads: ICANN Organization should work with the community to: a.Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that clearly define all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the service level target for each service. The recommendation in our previous attempt at a first reading in the full group had been for a service level agreements (SLA). As there had been strong reaction on SLAs because of their legal nature and the difficulty involved in negotiating such SLAs, the recommendation was changed to guidelines. In response, there was consensus in the subgroup, though not unanimity, for recommending guidelines instead of agreements. During the subgroup consensus call, there was a request that we wait until there had been time for more comment from the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO, on whose behalf the original recommendation had been made. It was argued that guidelines were an unreliable mechanism and that it would be better to develop SLAs. Because of the tight schedule and the intermittent nature of sub-team member attendance, it was recommended by others that we send the subgroup consensus document as is on to the full meeting leaving the issue of 4a open for discussion in the full meeting. An online consensus call supported this recommendation. The document can be found in <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPo...> (pdf attached) thank you avri
Thanks, Avri, fine with me. *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ... *(CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me] <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> On 19 September 2017 at 22:08, avri doria <avri@apc.org> wrote:
Hi,
Attached is version 1.6 of the Staff Accountability report. It is being submitted for a first reading in the full WS2 meeting. This will be the group's second attempt to do so. We have, since the first failed reading, discussed the issues that came out from that reading and have made extensive changes to the recommendations and their wording.
The report has received consensus from the subgroup in all aspects but one. Due to the limited number of people participating in out last meetings we felt that we could not resolve that issue without a wider conversation.
Currently recommendation 4a reads:
ICANN Organization should work with the community to:
a.Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that clearly define all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the service level target for each service.
The recommendation in our previous attempt at a first reading in the full group had been for a service level agreements (SLA). As there had been strong reaction on SLAs because of their legal nature and the difficulty involved in negotiating such SLAs, the recommendation was changed to guidelines. In response, there was consensus in the subgroup, though not unanimity, for recommending guidelines instead of agreements.
During the subgroup consensus call, there was a request that we wait until there had been time for more comment from the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO, on whose behalf the original recommendation had been made. It was argued that guidelines were an unreliable mechanism and that it would be better to develop SLAs.
Because of the tight schedule and the intermittent nature of sub-team member attendance, it was recommended by others that we send the subgroup consensus document as is on to the full meeting leaving the issue of 4a open for discussion in the full meeting. An online consensus call supported this recommendation.
The document can be found in <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_ rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPoYa8/edit?usp=sharing> (pdf attached)
thank you
avri
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Avri, I approve Regards On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, Avri, fine with me.
*Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ... *(CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me] <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>
On 19 September 2017 at 22:08, avri doria <avri@apc.org> wrote:
Hi,
Attached is version 1.6 of the Staff Accountability report. It is being submitted for a first reading in the full WS2 meeting. This will be the group's second attempt to do so. We have, since the first failed reading, discussed the issues that came out from that reading and have made extensive changes to the recommendations and their wording.
The report has received consensus from the subgroup in all aspects but one. Due to the limited number of people participating in out last meetings we felt that we could not resolve that issue without a wider conversation.
Currently recommendation 4a reads:
ICANN Organization should work with the community to:
a.Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that clearly define all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the service level target for each service.
The recommendation in our previous attempt at a first reading in the full group had been for a service level agreements (SLA). As there had been strong reaction on SLAs because of their legal nature and the difficulty involved in negotiating such SLAs, the recommendation was changed to guidelines. In response, there was consensus in the subgroup, though not unanimity, for recommending guidelines instead of agreements.
During the subgroup consensus call, there was a request that we wait until there had been time for more comment from the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO, on whose behalf the original recommendation had been made. It was argued that guidelines were an unreliable mechanism and that it would be better to develop SLAs.
Because of the tight schedule and the intermittent nature of sub-team member attendance, it was recommended by others that we send the subgroup consensus document as is on to the full meeting leaving the issue of 4a open for discussion in the full meeting. An online consensus call supported this recommendation.
The document can be found in <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tI aOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPoYa8/edit?usp=sharing> (pdf attached)
thank you
avri
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
Thanks Avri. I have a question on Service Level Guidelines/Agreement described in Staff Accountability Report as below: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPo...
ICANN Organization should work with the community to: Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that clearly define all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the service level target for each service.
I would like to double check the scope of this service level guidelines for "all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the service level target for each service". Would "contracted parties" here only include contracted parties of domain name services provided by ICANN? Izumi On 2017/09/19 21:08, avri doria wrote:
Hi,
Attached is version 1.6 of the Staff Accountability report. It is being submitted for a first reading in the full WS2 meeting. This will be the group's second attempt to do so. We have, since the first failed reading, discussed the issues that came out from that reading and have made extensive changes to the recommendations and their wording.
The report has received consensus from the subgroup in all aspects but one. Due to the limited number of people participating in out last meetings we felt that we could not resolve that issue without a wider conversation.
Currently recommendation 4a reads:
ICANN Organization should work with the community to:
a.Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that clearly define all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the service level target for each service.
The recommendation in our previous attempt at a first reading in the full group had been for a service level agreements (SLA). As there had been strong reaction on SLAs because of their legal nature and the difficulty involved in negotiating such SLAs, the recommendation was changed to guidelines. In response, there was consensus in the subgroup, though not unanimity, for recommending guidelines instead of agreements.
During the subgroup consensus call, there was a request that we wait until there had been time for more comment from the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO, on whose behalf the original recommendation had been made. It was argued that guidelines were an unreliable mechanism and that it would be better to develop SLAs.
Because of the tight schedule and the intermittent nature of sub-team member attendance, it was recommended by others that we send the subgroup consensus document as is on to the full meeting leaving the issue of 4a open for discussion in the full meeting. An online consensus call supported this recommendation.
The document can be found in <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPo...> (pdf attached)
thank you
avri
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, Yes, contracted parties is being used in the sense, common in GNSO - but perhaps not as much elsewhere, as a referent to gTLD contracted Registries and Registrars. So if I understand your question correctly: yes. Thanks for the question avri On 02-Oct-17 03:49, Izumi Okutani wrote:
Thanks Avri.
I have a question on Service Level Guidelines/Agreement described in Staff Accountability Report as below:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPo...
ICANN Organization should work with the community to: Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that clearly define all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the service level target for each service.
I would like to double check the scope of this service level guidelines for "all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the service level target for each service".
Would "contracted parties" here only include contracted parties of domain name services provided by ICANN?
Izumi
On 2017/09/19 21:08, avri doria wrote:
Hi,
Attached is version 1.6 of the Staff Accountability report. It is being submitted for a first reading in the full WS2 meeting. This will be the group's second attempt to do so. We have, since the first failed reading, discussed the issues that came out from that reading and have made extensive changes to the recommendations and their wording.
The report has received consensus from the subgroup in all aspects but one. Due to the limited number of people participating in out last meetings we felt that we could not resolve that issue without a wider conversation.
Currently recommendation 4a reads:
ICANN Organization should work with the community to:
a.Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that clearly define all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the service level target for each service.
The recommendation in our previous attempt at a first reading in the full group had been for a service level agreements (SLA). As there had been strong reaction on SLAs because of their legal nature and the difficulty involved in negotiating such SLAs, the recommendation was changed to guidelines. In response, there was consensus in the subgroup, though not unanimity, for recommending guidelines instead of agreements.
During the subgroup consensus call, there was a request that we wait until there had been time for more comment from the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO, on whose behalf the original recommendation had been made. It was argued that guidelines were an unreliable mechanism and that it would be better to develop SLAs.
Because of the tight schedule and the intermittent nature of sub-team member attendance, it was recommended by others that we send the subgroup consensus document as is on to the full meeting leaving the issue of 4a open for discussion in the full meeting. An online consensus call supported this recommendation.
The document can be found in <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPo...>
(pdf attached)
thank you
avri
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
That's helpful to confirm. I wasn't totally sure whether it includes IANA services other than domain names. Now, I understand it is for contracted parties for the gTLDs. Thanks Avri! Izumi On 2017/10/02 23:35, avri doria wrote:
Hi,
Yes, contracted parties is being used in the sense, common in GNSO - but perhaps not as much elsewhere, as a referent to gTLD contracted Registries and Registrars.
So if I understand your question correctly: yes.
Thanks for the question avri
On 02-Oct-17 03:49, Izumi Okutani wrote:
Thanks Avri.
I have a question on Service Level Guidelines/Agreement described in Staff Accountability Report as below:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPo...
ICANN Organization should work with the community to: Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that clearly define all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the service level target for each service.
I would like to double check the scope of this service level guidelines for "all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the service level target for each service".
Would "contracted parties" here only include contracted parties of domain name services provided by ICANN?
Izumi
On 2017/09/19 21:08, avri doria wrote:
Hi,
Attached is version 1.6 of the Staff Accountability report. It is being submitted for a first reading in the full WS2 meeting. This will be the group's second attempt to do so. We have, since the first failed reading, discussed the issues that came out from that reading and have made extensive changes to the recommendations and their wording.
The report has received consensus from the subgroup in all aspects but one. Due to the limited number of people participating in out last meetings we felt that we could not resolve that issue without a wider conversation.
Currently recommendation 4a reads:
ICANN Organization should work with the community to:
a.Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that clearly define all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the service level target for each service.
The recommendation in our previous attempt at a first reading in the full group had been for a service level agreements (SLA). As there had been strong reaction on SLAs because of their legal nature and the difficulty involved in negotiating such SLAs, the recommendation was changed to guidelines. In response, there was consensus in the subgroup, though not unanimity, for recommending guidelines instead of agreements.
During the subgroup consensus call, there was a request that we wait until there had been time for more comment from the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO, on whose behalf the original recommendation had been made. It was argued that guidelines were an unreliable mechanism and that it would be better to develop SLAs.
Because of the tight schedule and the intermittent nature of sub-team member attendance, it was recommended by others that we send the subgroup consensus document as is on to the full meeting leaving the issue of 4a open for discussion in the full meeting. An online consensus call supported this recommendation.
The document can be found in <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPo...>
(pdf attached)
thank you
avri
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (4)
-
avri doria -
Barrack Otieno -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Izumi Okutani