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