Service Level Expectations Design Team Template
Dear All, On behalf of Paul Kane, please find attached the completed template for the Service Levels Expectations Design Team. Best regards, Marika
Greetings Paul and All, Thanks you Paul for the work done on this so far. I have a concern about the work this design team will undertake being achievable in a timely manner AND in fact being necessary at this stage. Specifically my concern revolves around item 2 in the detailed description 'Document, list and detail how these current SLEs should be modified as part of the transition proposal to address any gaps or issues that were identified’. The IANA function is currently performed in accordance with the documents available at; https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-1-31may12-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-2-redacted-31may12... https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-3-redacted-31may12... http://www.iana.org/performance Whilst I know that there are some who believe that there can be improvements in the current service levels and performance of IANA including in the area of further automation and so on, it is my understanding that there is general consensus amongst the IANA customers that the current service levels and performance of IANA are satisfactory. Part of my concern is that changes to these service levels will need to be carefully thought through (not least to ensure that any changes don’t impinge on policy) and discussed by and bought into by the IANA customers which is a pretty tall order given the rest of the work that needs to be done in the time frame we have set. 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? Cheers, Chris On 1 Mar 2015, at 09:36 , Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
On behalf of Paul Kane, please find attached the completed template for the Service Levels Expectations Design Team.
Best regards,
Marika
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. http://www.avast.com
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?
------------------------------ <http://www.avast.com/>
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 *
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
+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?
------------------------------ <http://www.avast.com/>
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
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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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?
------------------------------ <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
Agree with Chris's approach and Jordan's variation. On 3/1/2015 7:17 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
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 <mailto: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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Skype: jordancarter
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 04:17:28PM +0900, Jordan Carter wrote:
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....
I'm really uncomfortable with this addition. It sounds to me like this is an attempt to add to the transition _changes_ to the pre-transition state of affairs. It entails a claim that the existing state of affairs is not good enough; but that would be acceptable. It _also_, however, entails a claim that the post-transition change management procedures won't work, so one needs to get any such changes done now. If that is true, the transition will be unsuccessful in its own terms and therefore would be bad. I believe this WG needs to take a firm position: if there is something that is wrong in the existing arrangements and that is not directly related to the NTIA contract itself or the accountability framework as it exists today, thenthat wrong thing actually ought to persist across the transtition precisely because it should be possible to deal with it in an entirely acceptable way afterwards. The test of "acceptable way" is not "I am sure I'll get what I want," but, "I am sure that the procedure by which the decision will be made will be one I can accept." In fact, the more such cases we have to use as measures, the more likely we are to think we have a transition plan that really solves the problem. Therefore, I oppose strongly this additional condition. It's on the wrong side of the transition. This is not the opportunity to ensure that one's current issue is solved; this is the opportunity to ensure that one's issue will have a solid and acceptable mechanism to resolve such issues in the future Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Andrew, How do you define wrong? Who defines wrong? Having a " solid and acceptable mechanism to resolve such issues in the future " sounds like a good plan but it depends on what is determined to be 'solid' and whether registries determine what is acceptable. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 5:57 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Service Level Expectations Design Team Template On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 04:17:28PM +0900, Jordan Carter wrote:
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....
I'm really uncomfortable with this addition. It sounds to me like this is an attempt to add to the transition _changes_ to the pre-transition state of affairs. It entails a claim that the existing state of affairs is not good enough; but that would be acceptable. It _also_, however, entails a claim that the post-transition change management procedures won't work, so one needs to get any such changes done now. If that is true, the transition will be unsuccessful in its own terms and therefore would be bad. I believe this WG needs to take a firm position: if there is something that is wrong in the existing arrangements and that is not directly related to the NTIA contract itself or the accountability framework as it exists today, thenthat wrong thing actually ought to persist across the transtition precisely because it should be possible to deal with it in an entirely acceptable way afterwards. The test of "acceptable way" is not "I am sure I'll get what I want," but, "I am sure that the procedure by which the decision will be made will be one I can accept." In fact, the more such cases we have to use as measures, the more likely we are to think we have a transition plan that really solves the problem. Therefore, I oppose strongly this additional condition. It's on the wrong side of the transition. This is not the opportunity to ensure that one's current issue is solved; this is the opportunity to ensure that one's issue will have a solid and acceptable mechanism to resolve such issues in the future Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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<mailto: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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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? ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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? ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Hello Chuck, In other to maximise time and hopefully reduce the volume query on DT outcome, i think the scope of work of the design team should be determined before leaving things to their creativity. One of such scope is for the DT not to introduce new SLE(A) requirements but ensure there are means to update the requirements post-transition. Regards On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
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 <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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Sean, Don’t you think the Design Team should discuss this and not be limited before they do their work? Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 7:43 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Martin Boyle; Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Service Level Expectations Design Team Template Hello Chuck, In other to maximise time and hopefully reduce the volume query on DT outcome, i think the scope of work of the design team should be determined before leaving things to their creativity. One of such scope is for the DT not to introduce new SLE(A) requirements but ensure there are means to update the requirements post-transition. Regards On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: 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> [mailto: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<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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? ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
I agree with Chuck – everyone understands that our time is limited and the DT should not open issues that it doesn’t really need to open to effectuate the transition, so with that understanding we should let the DT members themselves decide how to optimize their approach to the SLE. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, March 6, 2015 9:59 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Service Level Expectations Design Team Template Sean, Don’t you think the Design Team should discuss this and not be limited before they do their work? Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 7:43 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Martin Boyle; Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Service Level Expectations Design Team Template Hello Chuck, In other to maximise time and hopefully reduce the volume query on DT outcome, i think the scope of work of the design team should be determined before leaving things to their creativity. One of such scope is for the DT not to introduce new SLE(A) requirements but ensure there are means to update the requirements post-transition. Regards On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: 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> [mailto: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<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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? ________________________________ [Image removed by sender.]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
+1 Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 2:17 AM 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<mailto: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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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? ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Hi, On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 09:35:14AM +0900, Jordan Carter wrote:
If I read him right a) and b) should be done, but c) should not.
I think that is an excellent summary of what should happen. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
I strongly support this. We have sufficient work to do in just making the transition happen. Changes that are not mandatory for an effective transition are, in my mind, either out of scope, or distractions. Alan At 28/02/2015 06:43 PM, Chris Disspain wrote:
Greetings Paul and All,
Thanks you Paul for the work done on this so far.
I have a concern about the work this design team will undertake being achievable in a timely manner AND in fact being necessary at this stage. Specifically my concern revolves around item 2 in the detailed description 'Document, list and detail how these current SLEs should be modified as part of the transition proposal to address any gaps or issues that were identified'.
The IANA function is currently performed in accordance with the documents available at;
https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-1-31may12-en.pdf
https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-2-redacted-31may12...
https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-3-redacted-31may12...
http://www.iana.org/performance
Whilst I know that there are some who believe that there can be improvements in the current service levels and performance of IANA including in the area of further automation and so on, it is my understanding that there is general consensus amongst the IANA customers that the current service levels and performance of IANA are satisfactory.
Part of my concern is that changes to these service levels will need to be carefully thought through (not least to ensure that any changes don't impinge on policy) and discussed by and bought into by the IANA customers which is a pretty tall order given the rest of the work that needs to be done in the time frame we have set.
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?
Cheers,
Chris
On 1 Mar 2015, at 09:36 , Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
On behalf of Paul Kane, please find attached the completed template for the Service Levels Expectations Design Team.
Best regards,
Marika
Greetings Paul and All,
Thanks you Paul for the work done on this so far.
I have a concern about the work this design team will undertake being achievable in a timely manner AND in fact being necessary at this stage. Specifically my concern revolves around item 2 in the detailed description 'Document, list and detail how these current SLEs should be modified as part of the transition proposal to address any gaps or issues that were identified'.
The IANA function is currently performed in accordance with the documents available at;
https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-2-redacted-31may12...
<https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-3-redacted-31may12-en.pdf>https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-3-redacted-31may12-en.pdf http://www.iana.org/performance
Whilst I know that there are some who believe that there can be improvements in the current service levels and performance of IANA including in the area of further automation and so on, it is my understanding that there is general consensus amongst the IANA customers that the current service levels and performance of IANA are satisfactory.
Part of my concern is that changes to these service levels will need to be carefully thought through (not least to ensure that any changes don't impinge on policy) and discussed by and bought into by the IANA customers which is a pretty tall order given the rest of the work that needs to be done in the time frame we have set.
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?
Cheers,
Chris
On 1 Mar 2015, at 09:36 , Marika Konings <<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
On behalf of Paul Kane, please find attached the completed template for the Service Levels Expectations Design Team.
Best regards,
Marika
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename*0="Design Team - Service Level" Expectations - 28 February 2015 - PK"; filename*1=".docx" Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; x-unix-mode=0644; name="Design Team - Service Level Expectations - 28" February 2015 - PK.docx"
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (11)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrew Sullivan -
Avri Doria -
Chris Disspain -
Gomes, Chuck -
Jordan Carter -
Marika Konings -
Martin Boyle -
Matthew Shears -
Milton L Mueller -
Seun Ojedeji