In my personal opinion, it is too early to decide that no changes should occur in the SLAs before transition.  We should let the design team come up with recommendations on that.

 

Chuck

 

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 5:49 AM
To: Jordan Carter; Seun Ojedeji

Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Service Level Expectations Design Team Template

 

Hi Jordan, all,

 

I liked your first compilation.  I am less clear on what your amendment does:  is it that the design team will seek to identify specific areas of SLA that should be amended before transition?  In other words, that a revised SLA would need to be negotiated (let’s not forget that we are talking about an agreement and there are usually consequences on amending service levels).

 

Without having any clear idea of what the design team might decide falls in this revised category, I’m not very happy with munging b) and c):  processes that allow us to maintain the SLAs post transition and pre-transition changes.  If it really is necessary to amend specific terms before transition, that is an additional step:

 

1.       Pre-transition

a) identification of any conditions that need to be amended or updated before transition and what needs to be done in order to address these concerns;

b) porting across existing service level obligations to the post-transition environment;  and

c) creating the possibility of reviewing and changing them in future.

2.       Post-transition

d) Regular reviewing and updating the substantive content

 

The design team would therefore look at a)-c). And I would expect there to be very few – and clearly justified – items under a).

 

Martin

 

 

 

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter
Sent: 01 March 2015 07:17
To: Seun Ojedeji
Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Service Level Expectations Design Team Template

 

I've thought of a b/c mid point complication: 

 

It is: whether anything needs to be added to currently documented SLA standards to allow the transition to be acceptable to any key customer community.

 

That's not a wholesale review but it's a little more than b), while respecting the need for conservatism and efficiency....

 

Jordan 

On Sunday, 1 March 2015, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

+1 to Jordan's specific suggestion as well;  considering that everything works just fine right now is an indication that repeating the current SLA would at least maintain status quo.

Will be good if that methodology is applied to other design teams as much as possible.
The goal is to build a stronger ICANN and so long as we have a  multistakeholder means/process to do that, then our job is done.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 1 Mar 2015 01:46, "Chris Disspain" <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:

You read me right, man ;-)

 

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

 

On 1 Mar 2015, at 11:35 , Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

 

Hi all,

 

I think Chris's proposal makes sense too in logically separating:

 

a) porting across existing service level obligations to the post-transition environment;

b) creating the possibility of reviewing and changing them in future; and 

c) reviewing and updating the substantive content

 

If I read him right a) and b) should be done, but c) should not. 

 

That might trim the work this design team needs to do and make finalising the names community proposal easier...

 

cheers

Jordan

 

 

On 1 March 2015 at 08:56, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

Makes sense to me.

avri

On 28-Feb-15 18:43, Chris Disspain wrote:

On that basis I wonder whether we would not be better served by accepting the current status quo and building a mechanism for review and negotiated changes to those service levels that could be employed immediately after transition and on an ongoing basis. 

 

Thoughts?

 

---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

 

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

 

--

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet 

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

 

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity