Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Grace, Many thanks for helping DT-A obtain the current detailed IANA work flow information.... Have a great w/end Best Paul Begin forwarded message: ----- Forwarded message from Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> ----- Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 19:42:18 +0100 From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Reply-To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org> Thanks Elise I confirm receipt of the response from ICANN Legal following our DIDP request. On or after the 12th May 2015, we look forward to receiving the current detailed IANA process workflow documents (with comments as to why any "sensitive" information has been redacted) so we can work cooperatively with you to create a professional Service Level Expectation (SLE) document for the benefit of the whole community. Have a great w/end Best Paul Quoting Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>:
Hi Paul,
ICANN has published its response on the ICANN website to your request for workflow documents. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/transparency-en
I just wanted to send a quick note to confirm that you had received the response.
Regards, -- Elise
From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 10:32 AM To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org> Cc: "dt1@icann.org" <dt1@icann.org>, Kim Davies <kim.davies@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Thanks Elise - I appreciate you are trying to have the work-flow documents released to the SLE Design Team.
Once we have the work-flow documents, it would be great to have a call to discuss how our findings of real-world activity ensure the SLE captures
all
aspects of the RZM process.
I also welcome and agree with Theresa's comments below:
Quoting Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart@icann.org>:
We have no desire to affect the results of the community processes. We also believe that it would be more appropriate to maintain the status quo until the conclusion of the transition process to not pre-empt or create a perception of pre-empting any of the community consensus process around any areas in the finalization of the transition.
Samantha - would you please expedite the process please. NTIA are yet to receive your request to share ICANN's internal IANA work-flow diagrams with the Design Team.
Have a great w/end all
Best
Paul
Quoting Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>:
Hello Paul,
We too would like to help you finalize the Service Level Expectation document and are awaiting all necessary authorizations to release the documents in question.
May I suggest, in the mean time, that we schedule another teleconference with Design Team A to review line by line the SLEs that are in the draft document to understand what is requested and to provide preliminary feedback on feasibility of implementation. This would enable the design team to continue work on refining its draft.
Best regards, -- Elise
From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 2:00 AM To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org> Cc: "dt1@icann.org" <dt1@icann.org>, Kim Davies <kim.davies@icann.org> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Morning Elise
We are trying to finalise the Service Level Expectation document for the IANA transition.
Would you please provide the work-flow documents you current have so we can capture what you are doing now and discuss with you which steps you consider are to be removed as part of NTIA's withdrawal from the process.
The balance of the IANA RZM work flow documents can follow and be discussed, later.
I understand that IANA RZM uses a ticketing system to initiate and receive emails to Registry customers. Please ensure that technical resource are available (as is standard industry practice) to enable IANA to automatically monitor each transaction and collect statistics on its customers use of the ticketing system.
Speak soon I hope
Best
Paul
Quoting Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>:
> Hello Jay, > > Paulùs email requested óaccess to all work-flow process documentsò for the > root zone management function. Including sub-processes, there are quite a > few work flow processes for the root zone function. We are reviewing all of > them as per the request. > > Let me assure you we are not creating new documentation in response to the > request, and we are proceeding as fast as possible to fulfill the request. > > Best regards, > -- Elise > > > From: Jay Daley <jay@nzrs.net.nz> > Date: Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 1:33 PM > To: "dt1@icann.org" <dt1@icann.org> > Cc: Kim Davies <kim.davies@icann.org>, Elise Gerich > <elise.gerich@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background
info.
> > >>> > Morning all > >>> > > >>> > i donùt see much point in us having this call without the documentation > from > >>> > IANA. The screenshot of the process flow (thanks Elise) looks pretty >>> much > the > >>> > same as the process flow encoded in the expectations of the > proposed SLA, > so > >>> > we really need to see the more detailed process flow to > understand the > issues > >>> > Kim raised in the last call. > >>> > > >>> > It sounds as if IANA are bundling a whole lot of things together to send > us > >>> > when we would benefit from the process flow being sent as soon as >>> possible > >>> > (since it must already exist, all it requires is NTIA > permission). The > other > >>> > documents, currently being written, can come later. > >>> > > >>> > If we do go ahead then I can make this time. If we bring it forward an > hour > >>> > then I can only join for 30 minutes (school run). > >>> > > >>> > cheers > >>> > Jay > >>> > >>> >>>> >> On 17/04/2015, at 9:16 pm, Patricio Poblete > >>>> <patricio.poblete@gmail.com> >>> >>>> >> wrote: >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> Paul, >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> I cannot join the call at this hour (6 pm) in Chile, but I could if it > was >>> >>>> >> one hour earlier. >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> Patricio >>> >>>> >> P. S. Please announce also the UTC time >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> On Apr 17, 2015 4:29 AM, "Paul M Kane - CWG" <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> >>> >>>> >> wrote: >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> To give ICANN legal more time to facilitate disclosure of the required > info >>> >>>> >> may >>> >>>> >> I suggest the time of next call is put back to Monday 20th >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> This also gives us time to review our document >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> To have as many participants involved in the call can I suggest >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> Tuesday 9am Auckland time >>> >>>> >> Monday 10 pm London time >>> >>>> >> Monday 5pm EST New York >>> >>>> >> Monday 2 pm PST LA time >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> I think the above is correct...... >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> Could everyone that is able to attend please confirm if this works for > them >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> Have a great w/end >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> Best >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> Paul >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> Quoting Kim Davies <kim.davies@icann.org>: >>> >>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > Hi Paul, >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> > > Would you please ask ICANN legal to check that NTIA has been sent > the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> > > disclosure request for IANA Root Services. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > ICANN is still preparing the bundle of materials that is >>> >>>>>> responsive > to >>>>> >>>>> >>> your >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > request. Once it has completed the internal review process it will be >>>>> >>>>> >>> sent to >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > NTIA for their permission to disclose. As we noted on the call, ICANN > is >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > doing this as quickly as possible ââ¬Â¹ not just for this Design Team but >>>>> >>>>> >>> others >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > that have asked for information ââ¬Â¹ but it is not an instantaneous >>>>> >>>>> >>> process. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > The DIDP process is lead by ICANNùs Legal department but they have > asked > us >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > in IANA for clarifications and help compiling the relevant >>> >>>>>> internal >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > documentation. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> > > Can the SLE DT we have a call on Monday (20th) next week to run >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> through >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > your >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> > > comments and all being well the flow charts to make sure the SLE > is >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > complete. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> > > What time (morning) works for you? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > At this stage, it looks like I can accommodate any reasonable time on >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > Monday. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > kim >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> >> dt1 mailing list >>> >>>> >> dt1@icann.org >>> >>>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt1 >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> >> dt1 mailing list >>> >>>> >> dt1@icann.org >>> >>>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt1 > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Jay Daley > >>> > Chief Executive > >>> > NZRS Ltd > >>> > desk: +64 4 931 6977 > >>> > mobile: +64 21 678840 > >>> > linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley > >>> > > >>> > > > >
_______________________________________________ dt1 mailing list dt1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt1 ----- End forwarded message -----
Better read the letter carefully, Paul It is pure 100% distilled essence of ICANN legal. As I read the letter, they have not given you anything that is not already published on the web.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 2:50 PM To: Grace Abuhamad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Grace,
Many thanks for helping DT-A obtain the current detailed IANA work flow information....
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
Begin forwarded message:
----- Forwarded message from Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane- cwg@icb.co.uk> ----- Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 19:42:18 +0100 From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Reply-To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>
Thanks Elise
I confirm receipt of the response from ICANN Legal following our DIDP request.
On or after the 12th May 2015, we look forward to receiving the current detailed IANA process workflow documents (with comments as to why any "sensitive" information has been redacted) so we can work cooperatively with you to create a professional Service Level Expectation (SLE) document for the benefit of the whole community.
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
Quoting Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>:
Hi Paul,
ICANN has published its response on the ICANN website to your request for workflow documents. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/transparency- en
I just wanted to send a quick note to confirm that you had received the response.
Regards, -- Elise
From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Date: Friday, May 1, 2015 at 10:32 AM To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org> Cc: "dt1@icann.org" <dt1@icann.org>, Kim Davies <kim.davies@icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Thanks Elise - I appreciate you are trying to have the work-flow documents released to the SLE Design Team.
Once we have the work-flow documents, it would be great to have
a
call to discuss how our findings of real-world activity ensure the SLE captures all aspects of the RZM process.
I also welcome and agree with Theresa's comments below:
Quoting Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart@icann.org>:
We have no desire to affect the results of the community processes. We also believe that it would be more appropriate to maintain the status quo until the conclusion of the transition process to not pre-empt or create a perception of pre-empting any of the community consensus process around any areas in the finalization of the transition.
Samantha - would you please expedite the process please. NTIA are yet to receive your request to share ICANN's internal IANA work- flow diagrams with the Design Team.
Have a great w/end all
Best
Paul
Quoting Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>:
Hello Paul,
We too would like to help you finalize the Service Level Expectation document and are awaiting all necessary authorizations to release the documents in question.
May I suggest, in the mean time, that we schedule another teleconference with Design Team A to review line by line the SLEs that are in the draft document to understand what is requested and to provide preliminary feedback on feasibility of implementation. This would enable the design team to continue work on refining its draft.
Best regards, -- Elise
From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 2:00 AM To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org> Cc: "dt1@icann.org" <dt1@icann.org>, Kim Davies <kim.davies@icann.org> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Morning Elise
We are trying to finalise the Service Level Expectation document for the IANA transition.
Would you please provide the work-flow documents you current have so we can capture what you are doing now and discuss with you which steps you consider are to be removed as part of NTIA's withdrawal from the process.
The balance of the IANA RZM work flow documents can follow and be discussed, later.
I understand that IANA RZM uses a ticketing system to initiate and receive > emails to Registry customers. Please ensure that technical resource are available (as is standard industry practice) to enable IANA to automatically monitor each transaction and collect statistics on its customers use of the ticketing system.
Speak soon I hope
Best
Paul
Quoting Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>:
>> Hello Jay, >> >> PaulÃ,¹s email requested Ã,³access to all work-flow process documentsÃ,² for the >> root zone management function. Including sub-processes, there are quite a >> few work flow processes for the root zone function. We are reviewing all of >> them as per the request. >> >> Let me assure you we are not creating new documentation in response to the >> request, and we are proceeding as fast as possible to fulfill the request. >> >> Best regards, >> -- Elise >> >> >> From: Jay Daley <jay@nzrs.net.nz> >> Date: Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 1:33 PM >> To: "dt1@icann.org" <dt1@icann.org>
Cc: Kim Davies <kim.davies@icann.org>, Elise Gerich >> <elise.gerich@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background
info.
>> >> >>> > Morning all >> >>> > >> >>> > i donÃ,¹t see much point in us having this call >> without the documentation >> from >> >>> > IANA. The screenshot of the process flow (thanks >> Elise) looks pretty > >>> much >> the >> >>> > same as the process flow encoded in the expectations of >> the proposed SLA, >> so >> >>> > we really need to see the more detailed process flow to >> understand the >> issues >> >>> > Kim raised in the last call. >> >>> > >> >>> > It sounds as if IANA are bundling a whole lot of things together to send >> us >> >>> > when we would benefit from the process flow being sent >> as soon as > >>> possible >> >>> > (since it must already exist, all it requires is NTIA >> permission). The >> other >> >>> > documents, currently being written, can come later. >> >>> > >> >>> > If we do go ahead then I can make this time. If we >> bring it forward an >> hour >> >>> > then I can only join for 30 minutes (school run). >> >>> > >> >>> > cheers >> >>> > Jay >> >>> > >>>> >>>> >> On 17/04/2015, at 9:16 pm, Patricio Poblete >> >>>> <patricio.poblete@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> Paul, >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> I cannot join the call at this hour (6 pm) in >>>> Chile, but I could if it >> was >>>> >>>> >> one hour earlier. >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> Patricio >>>> >>>> >> P. S. Please announce also the UTC time >>>>
>>>> >>>> >> On Apr 17, 2015 4:29 AM, "Paul M Kane - CWG" <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> >>>> >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> To give ICANN legal more time to facilitate >>>> disclosure of the required >> info >>>> >>>> >> may >>>> >>>> >> I suggest the time of next call is put back to >>>> Monday 20th >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> This also gives us time to review our document >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> To have as many participants involved in >>>> the call can I suggest >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> Tuesday 9am Auckland time >>>> >> Monday 10 pm >>>> London time >>>> >> Monday 5pm EST New York >>>>
>>>> Monday 2 pm PST LA time >>>> >> >>>> >> I think the >>>> above is correct...... >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> Could everyone that is able to attend please >>>> confirm if this works for >> them >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> Have a great w/end >>>> >> >>>> >> Best
>>>> >> >>>> >> Paul >>>> >> >>>> >> Quoting Kim Davies >>>> <kim.davies@icann.org>: >>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > Hi Paul, >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> > > Would you please ask ICANN legal to >>>>>>>>> check that NTIA has been sent >> the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> > > disclosure request for IANA Root Services. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > ICANN is still preparing the bundle of materials that is >>>> >>>>>> responsive >> to >>>>>> >>>>> >>> your >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > request. Once it has completed the >>>>>>>> internal review process it will be >>>>>> >>>>> >>> sent to >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > NTIA for their permission to disclose. As >>>>>>>> we noted on the call, ICANN >> is >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > doing this as quickly as possible ââ,¬Â¹ >>>>>>>> not just for this Design Team but >>>>>> >>>>> >>> others >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > that have asked for information ââ,¬Â¹ >>>>>>>> but it is not an instantaneous >>>>>> >>>>> >>> process. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > The DIDP process is lead by ICANNÃ,¹s >>>>>>>> Legal department but they have >> asked >> us >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > in IANA for clarifications and help >>>>>>>> compiling the relevant >>>> >>>>>> internal >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > documentation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> > > Can the SLE DT we have a call on >>>>>>>>> Monday (20th) next week to run >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> through >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > your >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> > > comments and all being well the >>>>>>>>> flow charts to make sure the SLE >> is >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > complete. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> > > What time (morning) works for you? >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > At this stage, it looks like I can >>>>>>>> accommodate any reasonable time on >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > Monday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > kim >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >>
>>>> >>>> >> dt1 mailing list >>>> >>>> >> dt1@icann.org >>>> >>>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt1 >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >>
>>>> >>>> >> dt1 mailing list >>>> >>>> >> dt1@icann.org >>>> >>>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt1 >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > -- >> >>> > Jay Daley >> >>> > Chief Executive >> >>> > NZRS Ltd >> >>> > desk: +64 4 931 6977 >> >>> > mobile: +64 21 678840 >> >>> > linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley >>> > >>>
>> >> >>
_______________________________________________ dt1 mailing list dt1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt1
----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Milton I sincerely hope that ICANN legal are NOT interfering with how IANA staff deliver technical services to the community. What DT-A has done is capture the current performance delivered by IANA as the baseline for any post transition SLE - see the a draft SLE document under discussion attached...... Currently IANA delivers to the community Name Server updates, DS Record updates, WHOIS updates well within a week - and this includes having NTIA in the loop - so having an SLA that stipulates 21days for such tasks is clearly no longer fit for purpose. Attached is the statistical analysis of current performance based on IANA's data presented to the CWG in March https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/DT-A_Statistical-F... I genuinely believe IANA staff are trying to provide the information (true IANA needs to invest in monitoring the performance of their RZM systems - but that is trivial, two days of a competent programmers time would provide IANA and the community with the required matrices). It would be a great shame for ICANN legal to prevent the IANA service which is delivered to the community today from being accurately captured by the SLE Group.... time will tell... and I am optimistic we will receive constructive input. Best Paul Quoting Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
Better read the letter carefully, Paul It is pure 100% distilled essence of ICANN legal. As I read the letter, they have not given you anything that is not already published on the web.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 2:50 PM To: Grace Abuhamad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Grace,
Many thanks for helping DT-A obtain the current detailed IANA work flow information....
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
Begin forwarded message:
----- Forwarded message from Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane- cwg@icb.co.uk> ----- Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 19:42:18 +0100 From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Reply-To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>
Thanks Elise
I confirm receipt of the response from ICANN Legal following our DIDP request.
On or after the 12th May 2015, we look forward to receiving the current detailed IANA process workflow documents (with comments as to why any "sensitive" information has been redacted) so we can work cooperatively with you to create a professional Service Level Expectation (SLE) document for the benefit of the whole community.
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
Why is it no longer "fit for purpose"? What possible reason is there to change the SLA, except for the party to which the assurance is offered? We have a running system, and we should change as little as possible as part of the transition: this is just prudent engineering. A -- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
On May 9, 2015, at 10:19, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
Thanks Milton
I sincerely hope that ICANN legal are NOT interfering with how IANA staff deliver technical services to the community.
What DT-A has done is capture the current performance delivered by IANA as the baseline for any post transition SLE - see the a draft SLE document under discussion attached......
Currently IANA delivers to the community Name Server updates, DS Record updates, WHOIS updates well within a week - and this includes having NTIA in the loop - so having an SLA that stipulates 21days for such tasks is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Attached is the statistical analysis of current performance based on IANA's data presented to the CWG in March https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/DT-A_Statistical-F...
I genuinely believe IANA staff are trying to provide the information (true IANA needs to invest in monitoring the performance of their RZM systems - but that is trivial, two days of a competent programmers time would provide IANA and the community with the required matrices).
It would be a great shame for ICANN legal to prevent the IANA service which is delivered to the community today from being accurately captured by the SLE Group.... time will tell... and I am optimistic we will receive constructive input.
Best
Paul
Quoting Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
Better read the letter carefully, Paul It is pure 100% distilled essence of ICANN legal. As I read the letter, they have not given you anything that is not already published on the web.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 2:50 PM To: Grace Abuhamad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Grace,
Many thanks for helping DT-A obtain the current detailed IANA work flow information....
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
Begin forwarded message:
----- Forwarded message from Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane- cwg@icb.co.uk> ----- Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 19:42:18 +0100 From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Reply-To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>
Thanks Elise
I confirm receipt of the response from ICANN Legal following our DIDP request.
On or after the 12th May 2015, we look forward to receiving the current detailed IANA process workflow documents (with comments as to why any "sensitive" information has been redacted) so we can work cooperatively with you to create a professional Service Level Expectation (SLE) document for the benefit of the whole community.
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
<CWG-DRAFT-SLE-DTA.pdf> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Without reference to this specific situation as I am not familiar enough I would tend to somewhat disagree that its prudent engineering to maintain the status quo. Continuous improvement is a key part of any well run and functioning engineering system. If there is a possibility to improve a system or a process, and the risks have been quantified and assessed, then it is prudent to do so in many cases. In this case we seem to have a system which is run well enough that it is outperforming its current requirements, so unless there is a definite risk to the system I don't see why it's not a good time to examine this. If anything it's a credit to the IANA and its running to be able to consider tightening the operating parameters and tolerances of the system. As an analogy if you're running a datacenter and have data to show you're providing five nines of availability (99.999%) you generally wouldn't continue to only offer a 3 nines SLA (99.9%. Instead you'll show the progress and stability you've increased by, and you'll offer 4 nines (99.99%) to your customers. -James Gannon -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 11:44 AM To: Paul M Kane - CWG Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. Why is it no longer "fit for purpose"? What possible reason is there to change the SLA, except for the party to which the assurance is offered? We have a running system, and we should change as little as possible as part of the transition: this is just prudent engineering. A -- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
On May 9, 2015, at 10:19, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
Thanks Milton
I sincerely hope that ICANN legal are NOT interfering with how IANA staff deliver technical services to the community.
What DT-A has done is capture the current performance delivered by IANA as the baseline for any post transition SLE - see the a draft SLE document under discussion attached......
Currently IANA delivers to the community Name Server updates, DS Record updates, WHOIS updates well within a week - and this includes having NTIA in the loop - so having an SLA that stipulates 21days for such tasks is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Attached is the statistical analysis of current performance based on IANA's data presented to the CWG in March https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/DT-A_Statist ical-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426003475000&api=v2
I genuinely believe IANA staff are trying to provide the information (true IANA needs to invest in monitoring the performance of their RZM systems - but that is trivial, two days of a competent programmers time would provide IANA and the community with the required matrices).
It would be a great shame for ICANN legal to prevent the IANA service which is delivered to the community today from being accurately captured by the SLE Group.... time will tell... and I am optimistic we will receive constructive input.
Best
Paul
Quoting Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
Better read the letter carefully, Paul It is pure 100% distilled essence of ICANN legal. As I read the letter, they have not given you anything that is not already published on the web.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 2:50 PM To: Grace Abuhamad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Grace,
Many thanks for helping DT-A obtain the current detailed IANA work flow information....
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
Begin forwarded message:
----- Forwarded message from Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane- cwg@icb.co.uk> ----- Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 19:42:18 +0100 From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Reply-To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>
Thanks Elise
I confirm receipt of the response from ICANN Legal following our DIDP request.
On or after the 12th May 2015, we look forward to receiving the current detailed IANA process workflow documents (with comments as to why any "sensitive" information has been redacted) so we can work cooperatively with you to create a professional Service Level Expectation (SLE) document for the benefit of the whole community.
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
<CWG-DRAFT-SLE-DTA.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
Hi James, I guess the point is that improvement on performance should be an ongoing thing. Transition IMO should enable the ability to that and once that is possible then I am okay. I don't think this transition should be too focused performance review/improvement Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 9 May 2015 12:07, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Without reference to this specific situation as I am not familiar enough I would tend to somewhat disagree that its prudent engineering to maintain the status quo. Continuous improvement is a key part of any well run and functioning engineering system. If there is a possibility to improve a system or a process, and the risks have been quantified and assessed, then it is prudent to do so in many cases. In this case we seem to have a system which is run well enough that it is outperforming its current requirements, so unless there is a definite risk to the system I don't see why it's not a good time to examine this. If anything it's a credit to the IANA and its running to be able to consider tightening the operating parameters and tolerances of the system.
As an analogy if you're running a datacenter and have data to show you're providing five nines of availability (99.999%) you generally wouldn't continue to only offer a 3 nines SLA (99.9%. Instead you'll show the progress and stability you've increased by, and you'll offer 4 nines (99.99%) to your customers.
-James Gannon
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 11:44 AM To: Paul M Kane - CWG Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Why is it no longer "fit for purpose"? What possible reason is there to change the SLA, except for the party to which the assurance is offered? We have a running system, and we should change as little as possible as part of the transition: this is just prudent engineering.
A
-- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
On May 9, 2015, at 10:19, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
Thanks Milton
I sincerely hope that ICANN legal are NOT interfering with how IANA staff deliver technical services to the community.
What DT-A has done is capture the current performance delivered by IANA as the baseline for any post transition SLE - see the a draft SLE document under discussion attached......
Currently IANA delivers to the community Name Server updates, DS Record updates, WHOIS updates well within a week - and this includes having NTIA in the loop - so having an SLA that stipulates 21days for such tasks is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Attached is the statistical analysis of current performance based on IANA's data presented to the CWG in March https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/DT-A_Statist ical-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426003475000&api=v2
I genuinely believe IANA staff are trying to provide the information (true IANA needs to invest in monitoring the performance of their RZM systems - but that is trivial, two days of a competent programmers time would provide IANA and the community with the required matrices).
It would be a great shame for ICANN legal to prevent the IANA service which is delivered to the community today from being accurately captured by the SLE Group.... time will tell... and I am optimistic we will receive constructive input.
Best
Paul
Quoting Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
Better read the letter carefully, Paul It is pure 100% distilled essence of ICANN legal. As I read the letter, they have not given you anything that is not already published on the web.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 2:50 PM To: Grace Abuhamad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Grace,
Many thanks for helping DT-A obtain the current detailed IANA work flow information....
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
Begin forwarded message:
----- Forwarded message from Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane- cwg@icb.co.uk> ----- Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 19:42:18 +0100 From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Reply-To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>
Thanks Elise
I confirm receipt of the response from ICANN Legal following our DIDP request.
On or after the 12th May 2015, we look forward to receiving the current detailed IANA process workflow documents (with comments as to why any "sensitive" information has been redacted) so we can work cooperatively with you to create a professional Service Level Expectation (SLE) document for the benefit of the whole community.
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
<CWG-DRAFT-SLE-DTA.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Seun, I believe the point that DT-A has made based on their analysis of actual IANA service performance is that the ability to tighten the SLEs is possible without putting unreasonable expectations on the IANA team. And regarding the expectations, they are now consulting with the IANA team to test the reasonableness of the SLEs. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 8:03 AM To: James Gannon Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. Hi James, I guess the point is that improvement on performance should be an ongoing thing. Transition IMO should enable the ability to that and once that is possible then I am okay. I don't think this transition should be too focused performance review/improvement Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 9 May 2015 12:07, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Without reference to this specific situation as I am not familiar enough I would tend to somewhat disagree that its prudent engineering to maintain the status quo. Continuous improvement is a key part of any well run and functioning engineering system. If there is a possibility to improve a system or a process, and the risks have been quantified and assessed, then it is prudent to do so in many cases. In this case we seem to have a system which is run well enough that it is outperforming its current requirements, so unless there is a definite risk to the system I don't see why it's not a good time to examine this. If anything it's a credit to the IANA and its running to be able to consider tightening the operating parameters and tolerances of the system. As an analogy if you're running a datacenter and have data to show you're providing five nines of availability (99.999%) you generally wouldn't continue to only offer a 3 nines SLA (99.9%. Instead you'll show the progress and stability you've increased by, and you'll offer 4 nines (99.99%) to your customers. -James Gannon -----Original Message----- 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 Andrew Sullivan Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 11:44 AM To: Paul M Kane - CWG Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. Why is it no longer "fit for purpose"? What possible reason is there to change the SLA, except for the party to which the assurance is offered? We have a running system, and we should change as little as possible as part of the transition: this is just prudent engineering. A -- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
On May 9, 2015, at 10:19, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>> wrote:
Thanks Milton
I sincerely hope that ICANN legal are NOT interfering with how IANA staff deliver technical services to the community.
What DT-A has done is capture the current performance delivered by IANA as the baseline for any post transition SLE - see the a draft SLE document under discussion attached......
Currently IANA delivers to the community Name Server updates, DS Record updates, WHOIS updates well within a week - and this includes having NTIA in the loop - so having an SLA that stipulates 21days for such tasks is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Attached is the statistical analysis of current performance based on IANA's data presented to the CWG in March https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/DT-A_Statist ical-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426003475000&api=v2
I genuinely believe IANA staff are trying to provide the information (true IANA needs to invest in monitoring the performance of their RZM systems - but that is trivial, two days of a competent programmers time would provide IANA and the community with the required matrices).
It would be a great shame for ICANN legal to prevent the IANA service which is delivered to the community today from being accurately captured by the SLE Group.... time will tell... and I am optimistic we will receive constructive input.
Best
Paul
Quoting Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>:
Better read the letter carefully, Paul It is pure 100% distilled essence of ICANN legal. As I read the letter, they have not given you anything that is not already published on the web.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-<mailto:cwg-stewardship-> bounces@icann.org<mailto:bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 2:50 PM To: Grace Abuhamad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Grace,
Many thanks for helping DT-A obtain the current detailed IANA work flow information....
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
Begin forwarded message:
----- Forwarded message from Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane- cwg@icb.co.uk<mailto:cwg@icb.co.uk>> ----- Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 19:42:18 +0100 From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>> Reply-To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org<mailto:elise.gerich@icann.org>>
Thanks Elise
I confirm receipt of the response from ICANN Legal following our DIDP request.
On or after the 12th May 2015, we look forward to receiving the current detailed IANA process workflow documents (with comments as to why any "sensitive" information has been redacted) so we can work cooperatively with you to create a professional Service Level Expectation (SLE) document for the benefit of the whole community.
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
<CWG-DRAFT-SLE-DTA.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Well said James. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 7:06 AM To: Andrew Sullivan; Paul M Kane - CWG Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. Without reference to this specific situation as I am not familiar enough I would tend to somewhat disagree that its prudent engineering to maintain the status quo. Continuous improvement is a key part of any well run and functioning engineering system. If there is a possibility to improve a system or a process, and the risks have been quantified and assessed, then it is prudent to do so in many cases. In this case we seem to have a system which is run well enough that it is outperforming its current requirements, so unless there is a definite risk to the system I don't see why it's not a good time to examine this. If anything it's a credit to the IANA and its running to be able to consider tightening the operating parameters and tolerances of the system. As an analogy if you're running a datacenter and have data to show you're providing five nines of availability (99.999%) you generally wouldn't continue to only offer a 3 nines SLA (99.9%. Instead you'll show the progress and stability you've increased by, and you'll offer 4 nines (99.99%) to your customers. -James Gannon -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 11:44 AM To: Paul M Kane - CWG Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. Why is it no longer "fit for purpose"? What possible reason is there to change the SLA, except for the party to which the assurance is offered? We have a running system, and we should change as little as possible as part of the transition: this is just prudent engineering. A -- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
On May 9, 2015, at 10:19, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
Thanks Milton
I sincerely hope that ICANN legal are NOT interfering with how IANA staff deliver technical services to the community.
What DT-A has done is capture the current performance delivered by IANA as the baseline for any post transition SLE - see the a draft SLE document under discussion attached......
Currently IANA delivers to the community Name Server updates, DS Record updates, WHOIS updates well within a week - and this includes having NTIA in the loop - so having an SLA that stipulates 21days for such tasks is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Attached is the statistical analysis of current performance based on IANA's data presented to the CWG in March https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/DT-A_Statist ical-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426003475000&api=v2
I genuinely believe IANA staff are trying to provide the information (true IANA needs to invest in monitoring the performance of their RZM systems - but that is trivial, two days of a competent programmers time would provide IANA and the community with the required matrices).
It would be a great shame for ICANN legal to prevent the IANA service which is delivered to the community today from being accurately captured by the SLE Group.... time will tell... and I am optimistic we will receive constructive input.
Best
Paul
Quoting Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
Better read the letter carefully, Paul It is pure 100% distilled essence of ICANN legal. As I read the letter, they have not given you anything that is not already published on the web.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 2:50 PM To: Grace Abuhamad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Grace,
Many thanks for helping DT-A obtain the current detailed IANA work flow information....
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
Begin forwarded message:
----- Forwarded message from Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane- cwg@icb.co.uk> ----- Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 19:42:18 +0100 From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Reply-To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>
Thanks Elise
I confirm receipt of the response from ICANN Legal following our DIDP request.
On or after the 12th May 2015, we look forward to receiving the current detailed IANA process workflow documents (with comments as to why any "sensitive" information has been redacted) so we can work cooperatively with you to create a professional Service Level Expectation (SLE) document for the benefit of the whole community.
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
<CWG-DRAFT-SLE-DTA.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 11:06:14AM +0000, James Gannon wrote:
Without reference to this specific situation as I am not familiar enough I would tend to somewhat disagree that its prudent engineering to maintain the status quo.
But we're not maintaining the status quo. We're changing something else. In this case, we're changing the party monitoring performance, and I'm suggesting that we should not change _at the same time_ the things to be monitored. That's because right now, there are certain performance targets that a regularly exceeded. After the cutover, if the performance targets themselves will not have changed, it will be a simple matter to compare before and after, and see whether any performance changed. If at the same time we change the targets themselves, then evaluating conformance to the service levels pre- and post-transition will be harder.
Continuous improvement is a key part of any well run and functioning engineering system.
We agree about this, but it doesn't mean that one makes every change at the same time. Indeed, the fact of _continuous_ improvement ought to mean that you can do small increments of change all the time. I am suggesting that would be appropriate in this case.
If there is a possibility to improve a system or a process, and the risks have been quantified and assessed, then it is prudent to do so in many cases.
This sentence is very near to being an analytic truth, but it's not relevant to the present case, where nobody has done (as near as I can tell) _any_ quatification of risks to the system by changing lots of things at once. Every one of these changes needs to be reviewed in depth, and the more things we change the more we have to review. We _lower_ the risk by changing as little as possible, and there is no reason to suppose that we could not in a subsequent effort alter the service levels themselves. I'm sure someone will argue that the quantification comes from the fact that IANA is vastly exceeding these service level commitments already. If that is true, then there is no reason not to make the change after the transition, too, because IANA is hardly going to object to changing their service levels to be in line with what they actually do. (Indeed, the IETF's experience here is that IANA is entirely reponsive to such adjustments.)
In this case we seem to have a system which is run well enough that it is outperforming its current requirements, so unless there is a definite risk to the system I don't see why it's not a good time to examine this.
That puts the burden of proof exactly the wrong way around. To me, part of the reason we've ended up with such a complicated and difficult to review proposal is because many seem to want to use this opportunity to make unrelated changes that they want. That is a mistake if we want a successful transition.
If anything it's a credit to the IANA and its running to be able to consider tightening the operating parameters and tolerances of the system.
That's irrelevant. The point is that a stable transition depends on changing the minimum we need to get the transition to happen. We're already making many changes. Why add this?
As an analogy if you're running a datacenter and have data to show you're providing five nines of availability (99.999%) you generally wouldn't continue to only offer a 3 nines SLA (99.9%.
To begin with, the reasonableness of the new performance commitments are not under dispute. I think these are fine proposals for targets. I was disputing the claim that the existing ones are not fit for purpose, however. That is a strong claim, and I think it needs at least a little bit of argument other than "IANA is exceeding these." The purpose of the service commitments is to ensure stability of the registration system on the Internet. There's a claim that the current commitments are not fit to do that, and I haven't seen a single argument to that effect. So, the analogy is just irrelevant to this question. But anyway, why wouldn't I leave the three-nines offering in place? Adding the additional-nine commitment exposes me to a risk that I am not currently exposed to. I go from being able to have outage time of more than 8 hours a year without incurring penalties to being vulnerable to penalties that kick in after less than an hour. That's real exposure, and for customers that demand 4 or 5 nines I will charge a higher price. I might run the datacentre as a five-nines centre, but I won't offer that commitment to anyone but the premium customers. If I did otherwise, it would be irresponsible.
Instead you'll show the progress and stability you've increased by, and you'll offer 4 nines (99.99%) to your customers.
If I did without getting either more money from customers or showing that I could attract or keep customers this way, then I should be fired. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Quoting Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>:
Why is it no longer "fit for purpose"?
NTIA is not going to be there and many ccTLDs are not party to any agreement with ICANN What possible reason is there to
change the SLA,
We have recorded the ACTUAL IANA RZM performance with NTIA being involved using data published by IANA. An SLA prescribing 21 days to change a DS record or name server that bears no relation to actual performance delivered is not fit for purpose IMHO
except for the party to which the assurance is offered?
Correct - I agree The registry community need assurance that at the very least the actual performance delivered today continues post transition. We
have a running system, and we should change as little as possible as part of the transition: this is just prudent engineering.
Agree here too. The goal is not to change the system but to have proper monitoring Best Paul Ps I am travelling this w/end (no Internet access in 30 mins) back on Monday
A
-- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
On May 9, 2015, at 10:19, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
Thanks Milton
I sincerely hope that ICANN legal are NOT interfering with how IANA staff deliver technical services to the community.
What DT-A has done is capture the current performance delivered by IANA as the baseline for any post transition SLE - see the a draft SLE document under discussion attached......
Currently IANA delivers to the community Name Server updates, DS Record updates, WHOIS updates well within a week - and this includes having NTIA in the loop - so having an SLA that stipulates 21days for such tasks is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Attached is the statistical analysis of current performance based on IANA's data presented to the CWG in March
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/DT-A_Statistical- Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426003475000&api=v2
I genuinely believe IANA staff are trying to provide the information (true
IANA
needs to invest in monitoring the performance of their RZM systems - but that is trivial, two days of a competent programmers time would provide IANA and the community with the required matrices).
It would be a great shame for ICANN legal to prevent the IANA service which is delivered to the community today from being accurately captured by the SLE Group.... time will tell... and I am optimistic we will receive constructive input.
Best
Paul
Quoting Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
Better read the letter carefully, Paul It is pure 100% distilled essence of ICANN legal. As I read the letter, they have not given you anything that is not already published on the web.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 2:50 PM To: Grace Abuhamad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Grace,
Many thanks for helping DT-A obtain the current detailed IANA work flow information....
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
Begin forwarded message:
----- Forwarded message from Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane- cwg@icb.co.uk> ----- Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 19:42:18 +0100 From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Reply-To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>
Thanks Elise
I confirm receipt of the response from ICANN Legal following our DIDP request.
On or after the 12th May 2015, we look forward to receiving the current detailed IANA process workflow documents (with comments as to why any "sensitive" information has been redacted) so we can work cooperatively with you to create a professional Service Level Expectation (SLE) document for the benefit of the whole community.
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
<CWG-DRAFT-SLE-DTA.pdf> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Andrew, I would agree with you if DT-A was proposing changes to the running operational system, but they are not. We are not talking about changing running code but rather changing customer service expectations to align them with what the IANA team has been delivering for some time. Besides, good engineering should be focused on delivering the best possible service to meeting customer needs. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 6:44 AM To: Paul M Kane - CWG Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. Why is it no longer "fit for purpose"? What possible reason is there to change the SLA, except for the party to which the assurance is offered? We have a running system, and we should change as little as possible as part of the transition: this is just prudent engineering. A -- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
On May 9, 2015, at 10:19, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> wrote:
Thanks Milton
I sincerely hope that ICANN legal are NOT interfering with how IANA staff deliver technical services to the community.
What DT-A has done is capture the current performance delivered by IANA as the baseline for any post transition SLE - see the a draft SLE document under discussion attached......
Currently IANA delivers to the community Name Server updates, DS Record updates, WHOIS updates well within a week - and this includes having NTIA in the loop - so having an SLA that stipulates 21days for such tasks is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Attached is the statistical analysis of current performance based on IANA's data presented to the CWG in March https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/DT-A_Statist ical-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426003475000&api=v2
I genuinely believe IANA staff are trying to provide the information (true IANA needs to invest in monitoring the performance of their RZM systems - but that is trivial, two days of a competent programmers time would provide IANA and the community with the required matrices).
It would be a great shame for ICANN legal to prevent the IANA service which is delivered to the community today from being accurately captured by the SLE Group.... time will tell... and I am optimistic we will receive constructive input.
Best
Paul
Quoting Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
Better read the letter carefully, Paul It is pure 100% distilled essence of ICANN legal. As I read the letter, they have not given you anything that is not already published on the web.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 2:50 PM To: Grace Abuhamad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Grace,
Many thanks for helping DT-A obtain the current detailed IANA work flow information....
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
Begin forwarded message:
----- Forwarded message from Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane- cwg@icb.co.uk> ----- Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 19:42:18 +0100 From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Reply-To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>
Thanks Elise
I confirm receipt of the response from ICANN Legal following our DIDP request.
On or after the 12th May 2015, we look forward to receiving the current detailed IANA process workflow documents (with comments as to why any "sensitive" information has been redacted) so we can work cooperatively with you to create a professional Service Level Expectation (SLE) document for the benefit of the whole community.
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
<CWG-DRAFT-SLE-DTA.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 01:15:05PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Andrew,
I would agree with you if DT-A was proposing changes to the running operational system, but they are not.
Yes, they are. The operational system includes comparisons by an observer of conformance to service levels. If you change the service levels at the same time as the transition, then I can't just look at the pre- and post-transition system and see, "Yep, they exceeded this every month by 25% both before and after," and so on. It's of course possible to normalise for that, but it's a completely irrelevant change to the transition and, in my opinion, is therefore the sort of change that we ought not to be making now.
We are not talking about changing running code but rather changing customer service expectations to align them with what the IANA team has been delivering for some time.
In other words, "We're changing a part of the overall system that is not directly related to the transition because we can."
Besides, good engineering should be focused on delivering the best possible service to meeting customer needs.
_One_ of the ways one does that is by evolutionary changes rolled out one at a time. At least from my point of view, it doesn't seem that Verisign would be in a hurry to make many changes at the same time, particularly when some of the changes have deadlines imposed by unpredictable external influences (which is why Verisign has the tremendous history of reliability to point to). I should expect us all to want the same prudence be used in this case. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Andrew, You clearly have a lot more confidence than I do that it will be possible to implement tighter SLEs after the transition. My pessimism is based on 15 years of experience with gTLD registry contracts in which ICANN readily agreed to SLAs for registries but resisted strongly to SLAs that impacted them and only more recently have they started to give some on that. Hopefully new accountability mechanisms will change that in the future, but until it happens, I will be doubtful. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 5:37 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 01:15:05PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Andrew,
I would agree with you if DT-A was proposing changes to the running operational system, but they are not.
Yes, they are. The operational system includes comparisons by an observer of conformance to service levels. If you change the service levels at the same time as the transition, then I can't just look at the pre- and post-transition system and see, "Yep, they exceeded this every month by 25% both before and after," and so on. It's of course possible to normalise for that, but it's a completely irrelevant change to the transition and, in my opinion, is therefore the sort of change that we ought not to be making now.
We are not talking about changing running code but rather changing customer service expectations to align them with what the IANA team has been delivering for some time.
In other words, "We're changing a part of the overall system that is not directly related to the transition because we can."
Besides, good engineering should be focused on delivering the best possible service to meeting customer needs.
_One_ of the ways one does that is by evolutionary changes rolled out one at a time. At least from my point of view, it doesn't seem that Verisign would be in a hurry to make many changes at the same time, particularly when some of the changes have deadlines imposed by unpredictable external influences (which is why Verisign has the tremendous history of reliability to point to). I should expect us all to want the same prudence be used in this case. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
This is basically an argument that we have to do everything at the time of transition because after that it'll be impossible to get changes. If that's true, then the accountability changes will have been inadequate. If that's what we think will happen, we should resist the transition _at all_. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
On May 9, 2015, at 21:51, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Andrew,
You clearly have a lot more confidence than I do that it will be possible to implement tighter SLEs after the transition. My pessimism is based on 15 years of experience with gTLD registry contracts in which ICANN readily agreed to SLAs for registries but resisted strongly to SLAs that impacted them and only more recently have they started to give some on that. Hopefully new accountability mechanisms will change that in the future, but until it happens, I will be doubtful.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 5:37 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 01:15:05PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Andrew,
I would agree with you if DT-A was proposing changes to the running operational system, but they are not.
Yes, they are. The operational system includes comparisons by an observer of conformance to service levels. If you change the service levels at the same time as the transition, then I can't just look at the pre- and post-transition system and see, "Yep, they exceeded this every month by 25% both before and after," and so on. It's of course possible to normalise for that, but it's a completely irrelevant change to the transition and, in my opinion, is therefore the sort of change that we ought not to be making now.
We are not talking about changing running code but rather changing customer service expectations to align them with what the IANA team has been delivering for some time.
In other words, "We're changing a part of the overall system that is not directly related to the transition because we can."
Besides, good engineering should be focused on delivering the best possible service to meeting customer needs.
_One_ of the ways one does that is by evolutionary changes rolled out one at a time. At least from my point of view, it doesn't seem that Verisign would be in a hurry to make many changes at the same time, particularly when some of the changes have deadlines imposed by unpredictable external influences (which is why Verisign has the tremendous history of reliability to point to). I should expect us all to want the same prudence be used in this case.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On May 9, 2015, at 7:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
This is basically an argument that we have to do everything at the time of transition because after that it'll be impossible to get changes. If that's true, then the accountability changes will have been inadequate. If that's what we think will happen, we should resist the transition _at all_.
The argument that’s been presented to me is that once _Congress_ has allowed the transition to go forward, _Congress_ will lose any opportunity to tinker under ICANN’s hood, so _Congress_ wants to do any tinkering now, before allowing the transition to go forward. I’m not saying that I find that compelling, just relating it as it was related to me, since it seemed internally consistent. Obviously, from the Numbers community’s point of view (and presumably the Protocols community’s as well), tweaking exactly one variable at a time, and not having to deal with other changes at the same time as the oversight change, would make much more sense. But that’s not an argument that carries any particular weight with Congress, presumably. -Bill
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 May 2015 06:40, "Bill Woodcock" <woody@pch.net> wrote:
On May 9, 2015, at 7:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:
This is basically an argument that we have to do everything at the time
of transition because after that it'll be impossible to get changes. If that's true, then the accountability changes will have been inadequate. If that's what we think will happen, we should resist the transition _at all_.
The argument that’s been presented to me is that once _Congress_ has allowed the transition to go forward, _Congress_ will lose any opportunity to tinker under ICANN’s hood, so _Congress_ wants to do any tinkering now, before allowing the transition to go forward.
SO: Yeah and the community powers would have come into action; so while Congress losses the opportunity, the community will gain the opportunity. What Congress may need to ensure is that the accountability mechanisms proposed gets implemented before transition and I think the last letter from NTIA to the Chairs of the various communities was quite strong about that. Regards
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
+1 to Andrew on this. Performance review would continue post-transition based our defined review process and non-compliance by the operator would receive one of the accountability action items defined by CCWG. The principle of "it's either now or never" should not extend to SLE especially as we all testify that IANA has performed adequately under the current SLA. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 May 2015 03:40, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
This is basically an argument that we have to do everything at the time of transition because after that it'll be impossible to get changes. If that's true, then the accountability changes will have been inadequate. If that's what we think will happen, we should resist the transition _at all_.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
On May 9, 2015, at 21:51, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Andrew,
You clearly have a lot more confidence than I do that it will be possible to implement tighter SLEs after the transition. My pessimism is based on 15 years of experience with gTLD registry contracts in which ICANN readily agreed to SLAs for registries but resisted strongly to SLAs that impacted them and only more recently have they started to give some on that. Hopefully new accountability mechanisms will change that in the future, but until it happens, I will be doubtful.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 5:37 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 01:15:05PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Andrew,
I would agree with you if DT-A was proposing changes to the running operational system, but they are not.
Yes, they are. The operational system includes comparisons by an observer of conformance to service levels. If you change the service levels at the same time as the transition, then I can't just look at the pre- and post-transition system and see, "Yep, they exceeded this every month by 25% both before and after," and so on. It's of course possible to normalise for that, but it's a completely irrelevant change to the transition and, in my opinion, is therefore the sort of change that we ought not to be making now.
We are not talking about changing running code but rather changing customer service expectations to align them with what the IANA team has been delivering for some time.
In other words, "We're changing a part of the overall system that is not directly related to the transition because we can."
Besides, good engineering should be focused on delivering the best possible service to meeting customer needs.
_One_ of the ways one does that is by evolutionary changes rolled out one at a time. At least from my point of view, it doesn't seem that Verisign would be in a hurry to make many changes at the same time, particularly when some of the changes have deadlines imposed by unpredictable external influences (which is why Verisign has the tremendous history of reliability to point to). I should expect us all to want the same prudence be used in this case.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ 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
-----Original Message-----
This is basically an argument that we have to do everything at the time of transition because after that it'll be impossible to get changes. If that's true, then the accountability changes will have been inadequate. If that's what we think will happen, we should resist the transition _at all_.
Non sequitur. The transition creates the opportunity for improvements. But as soon as it's over the willingness of all parties to change recedes. FWIW, I've been saying it's impossible and a bad idea to try to do "everything" since March 5, 2014 - 10 days before the NTIA even announced their support for a transition. I've always believed that the accountability of ICANN's board and policy making process is distinct from the IANA stewardship transition. There is a tendency on the CCWG side to load too many reforms into the immediate transition - and this tendency is greatly worsened by people who tell us that separability is a bad thing or a risky thing and that an external contracting authority is not necessary because we can....rely on ICANN's accountability reforms. So if you are one of those people, (and sometimes you sound like one) you have no one but yourself to blame for the "do everything at the time of transition" tendency, because it implies that both IANA and the policy process can rest entirely on ICANN's internal accountability mechanisms.
people who tell us that separability is … a risky thing …
Well, as you may have gathered already, I am among those. I fear the lack of accountability of your PTI/CSC/PRF apparatus far more than I fear the lack of accountability of ICANN; reformed as it must be. But I also fear that your concept of accountability to 'customers' is too narrow and commercially motivated. The principal issue is global multistakeholder accountability and accountability to the public interest and to Internet users. Also, the discussion about "Triggers for the Separation Review" is not relevant. And begs the question of DNS stability. In the unlikely event of risks of technical failure of IANA, then other powers would undoubtedly intervene long before PTI could organise and resolve RFPs etc. for a new transition. Please get real. Regards CW On 10 May 2015, at 14:28, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
This is basically an argument that we have to do everything at the time of transition because after that it'll be impossible to get changes. If that's true, then the accountability changes will have been inadequate. If that's what we think will happen, we should resist the transition _at all_.
Non sequitur. The transition creates the opportunity for improvements. But as soon as it's over the willingness of all parties to change recedes.
FWIW, I've been saying it's impossible and a bad idea to try to do "everything" since March 5, 2014 - 10 days before the NTIA even announced their support for a transition. I've always believed that the accountability of ICANN's board and policy making process is distinct from the IANA stewardship transition. There is a tendency on the CCWG side to load too many reforms into the immediate transition - and this tendency is greatly worsened by people who tell us that separability is a bad thing or a risky thing and that an external contracting authority is not necessary because we can....rely on ICANN's accountability reforms. So if you are one of those people, (and sometimes you sound like one) you have no one but yourself to blame for the "do everything at the time of transition" tendency, because it implies that both IANA and the policy process can rest entirely on ICANN's internal accountability mechanisms.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-----Original Message-----
I fear the lack of accountability of your PTI/CSC/PRF apparatus far more than I fear the lack of accountability of ICANN; reformed as it must be.
Chris, PTI would be an affiliate of ICANN, subject to a contract from ICANN and subject to periodic review by the ICANN community. There are very basic and strong forms of accountability over it. You call this a "lack of accountability." And you call an ICANN that has vertically integrated monopoly over both policy development and IANA "accountable" because....why, exactly? Tell us more about how making it impossible to extract IANA from ICANN makes either one of those entities more accountable. We haven't heard much about that from you.
But I also fear that your concept of accountability to 'customers' is too narrow and commercially motivated.
Because you don't understand what IANA does (update registries for names, numbers and protocols) it must be very hard indeed for you to understand a concept of accountability that links the updating of a registry to the people who actually have to live with the consequences of the registry changes. It is not a commercial motivation, it is an operational motivation.
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 12:28:51PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
This is basically an argument that we have to do everything at the time of transition because after that it'll be impossible to get changes. If that's true, then the accountability changes will have been inadequate. If that's what we think will happen, we should resist the transition _at all_.
Non sequitur. The transition creates the opportunity for improvements. But as soon as it's over the willingness of all parties to change recedes.
My point is that, as part of the transition, the accountability mechanisms at ICANN are supposed to be improved enough that we ought to be able to assume that ongoing improvements will be possible. If that it _not_ what we're going to get from the transition, then I am saying that the multi-stakeholder names community (as organized in ICANN) does not actually have the control and oversight that it needs, and therefore it's not the time to undertake the transition. I don't happen to think that's true, but if people really believe that we're not going to get the sort of control we ought to out of the transition, it is not prudent to proceed with the change. On the contrary, it would be reckless. You seem to be claiming that we won't get such mechanisms, and if that's true then I'm claiming we shouldn't have a transition.
transition - and this tendency is greatly worsened by people who tell us that separability is a bad thing or a risky thing and that an external contracting authority is not necessary because we can....rely on ICANN's accountability reforms. So if you are one of those people, (and sometimes you sound like one)
I don't think that the ability to terminate the agreement and change to someone else is a bad or risky thing. On the contrary, I think it is simply a normal commercial arrangement -- what else can you do in a contractual situation in the case of failure of one of the parties to hold up the bargain? What I have been focussed on is doing the minimum necessary to effect the changes we want. Several of the proposals I've seen floating around seem to create additional committees, bodies, and so on with the inevitable desire for big boards, many subcommittees, and the like. Those proposals are, in my opinion, a good way to create more expensive bureaucracy but a poor way to achieve the thing we want to achieve. That is what I've been objecting to, and I regret that it apparently wasn't plain. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Unfortunately Paul, ICANN legal has a long history at putting the interests of the corporation over public interests whenever the two conflict. That is a key reason why the community is demanding new and more effective accountability mechanisms. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 5:20 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. Thanks Milton I sincerely hope that ICANN legal are NOT interfering with how IANA staff deliver technical services to the community. What DT-A has done is capture the current performance delivered by IANA as the baseline for any post transition SLE - see the a draft SLE document under discussion attached...... Currently IANA delivers to the community Name Server updates, DS Record updates, WHOIS updates well within a week - and this includes having NTIA in the loop - so having an SLA that stipulates 21days for such tasks is clearly no longer fit for purpose. Attached is the statistical analysis of current performance based on IANA's data presented to the CWG in March https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/DT-A_Statistical-F... I genuinely believe IANA staff are trying to provide the information (true IANA needs to invest in monitoring the performance of their RZM systems - but that is trivial, two days of a competent programmers time would provide IANA and the community with the required matrices). It would be a great shame for ICANN legal to prevent the IANA service which is delivered to the community today from being accurately captured by the SLE Group.... time will tell... and I am optimistic we will receive constructive input. Best Paul Quoting Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
Better read the letter carefully, Paul It is pure 100% distilled essence of ICANN legal. As I read the letter, they have not given you anything that is not already published on the web.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 2:50 PM To: Grace Abuhamad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Grace,
Many thanks for helping DT-A obtain the current detailed IANA work flow information....
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
Begin forwarded message:
----- Forwarded message from Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane- cwg@icb.co.uk> ----- Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 19:42:18 +0100 From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Reply-To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>
Thanks Elise
I confirm receipt of the response from ICANN Legal following our DIDP request.
On or after the 12th May 2015, we look forward to receiving the current detailed IANA process workflow documents (with comments as to why any "sensitive" information has been redacted) so we can work cooperatively with you to create a professional Service Level Expectation (SLE) document for the benefit of the whole community.
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
Hi Chuck, ... and that is strange?(I don't think so, it's normal cooperation behavior to me) What I think is strange is that public interest does not seem to be adequately vested in the corporation's principles which I think is one of the aspect the CCWG is looking into (as you rightly hinted) Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 9 May 2015 14:20, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Unfortunately Paul, ICANN legal has a long history at putting the interests of the corporation over public interests whenever the two conflict. That is a key reason why the community is demanding new and more effective accountability mechanisms.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 5:20 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Thanks Milton
I sincerely hope that ICANN legal are NOT interfering with how IANA staff deliver technical services to the community.
What DT-A has done is capture the current performance delivered by IANA as the baseline for any post transition SLE - see the a draft SLE document under discussion attached......
Currently IANA delivers to the community Name Server updates, DS Record updates, WHOIS updates well within a week - and this includes having NTIA in the loop - so having an SLA that stipulates 21days for such tasks is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Attached is the statistical analysis of current performance based on IANA's data presented to the CWG in March
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/DT-A_Statistical-F...
I genuinely believe IANA staff are trying to provide the information (true IANA needs to invest in monitoring the performance of their RZM systems - but that is trivial, two days of a competent programmers time would provide IANA and the community with the required matrices).
It would be a great shame for ICANN legal to prevent the IANA service which is delivered to the community today from being accurately captured by the SLE Group.... time will tell... and I am optimistic we will receive constructive input.
Best
Paul
Quoting Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
Better read the letter carefully, Paul It is pure 100% distilled essence of ICANN legal. As I read the letter, they have not given you anything that is not already published on the web.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 2:50 PM To: Grace Abuhamad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Grace,
Many thanks for helping DT-A obtain the current detailed IANA work flow information....
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
Begin forwarded message:
----- Forwarded message from Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane- cwg@icb.co.uk> ----- Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 19:42:18 +0100 From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Reply-To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>
Thanks Elise
I confirm receipt of the response from ICANN Legal following our DIDP request.
On or after the 12th May 2015, we look forward to receiving the current detailed IANA process workflow documents (with comments as to why any "sensitive" information has been redacted) so we can work cooperatively with you to create a professional Service Level Expectation (SLE) document for the benefit of the whole community.
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
ICANN is not a normal corporation. Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 9:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Paul M Kane - CWG; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. Hi Chuck, ... and that is strange?(I don't think so, it's normal cooperation behavior to me) What I think is strange is that public interest does not seem to be adequately vested in the corporation's principles which I think is one of the aspect the CCWG is looking into (as you rightly hinted) Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 9 May 2015 14:20, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Unfortunately Paul, ICANN legal has a long history at putting the interests of the corporation over public interests whenever the two conflict. That is a key reason why the community is demanding new and more effective accountability mechanisms. Chuck -----Original Message----- 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 Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 5:20 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. Thanks Milton I sincerely hope that ICANN legal are NOT interfering with how IANA staff deliver technical services to the community. What DT-A has done is capture the current performance delivered by IANA as the baseline for any post transition SLE - see the a draft SLE document under discussion attached...... Currently IANA delivers to the community Name Server updates, DS Record updates, WHOIS updates well within a week - and this includes having NTIA in the loop - so having an SLA that stipulates 21days for such tasks is clearly no longer fit for purpose. Attached is the statistical analysis of current performance based on IANA's data presented to the CWG in March https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/DT-A_Statistical-F... I genuinely believe IANA staff are trying to provide the information (true IANA needs to invest in monitoring the performance of their RZM systems - but that is trivial, two days of a competent programmers time would provide IANA and the community with the required matrices). It would be a great shame for ICANN legal to prevent the IANA service which is delivered to the community today from being accurately captured by the SLE Group.... time will tell... and I am optimistic we will receive constructive input. Best Paul Quoting Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>:
Better read the letter carefully, Paul It is pure 100% distilled essence of ICANN legal. As I read the letter, they have not given you anything that is not already published on the web.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-<mailto:cwg-stewardship-> bounces@icann.org<mailto:bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 2:50 PM To: Grace Abuhamad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Grace,
Many thanks for helping DT-A obtain the current detailed IANA work flow information....
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
Begin forwarded message:
----- Forwarded message from Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane- cwg@icb.co.uk<mailto:cwg@icb.co.uk>> ----- Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 19:42:18 +0100 From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>> Reply-To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org<mailto:elise.gerich@icann.org>>
Thanks Elise
I confirm receipt of the response from ICANN Legal following our DIDP request.
On or after the 12th May 2015, we look forward to receiving the current detailed IANA process workflow documents (with comments as to why any "sensitive" information has been redacted) so we can work cooperatively with you to create a professional Service Level Expectation (SLE) document for the benefit of the whole community.
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Best laugh of the week! Thanks, Chuck From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] ICANN is not a normal corporation. Chuck
Hi Chuck, FWIW you were the first to use the word "corporation" and my point was that the behavior you postulated is expected. However the operating principles of a corporation would determine the extent at which the entity respect public interest. Fixing those operations guideline (principles) will go a long way at ensuring that ICANN legal indirectly defends public interest (even though they are required to defend the interest of the corporation). This is what I believe is one of the items of the CCWG. @Milton not sure it's a good laugh sufficient for the whole of the weekend (depending on your timezone). ;-) Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 9 May 2015 15:39, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
ICANN is not a normal corporation.
Chuck
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, May 09, 2015 9:27 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Paul M Kane - CWG; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Milton L Mueller *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Hi Chuck,
... and that is strange?(I don't think so, it's normal cooperation behavior to me) What I think is strange is that public interest does not seem to be adequately vested in the corporation's principles which I think is one of the aspect the CCWG is looking into (as you rightly hinted)
Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 9 May 2015 14:20, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Unfortunately Paul, ICANN legal has a long history at putting the interests of the corporation over public interests whenever the two conflict. That is a key reason why the community is demanding new and more effective accountability mechanisms.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 5:20 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Thanks Milton
I sincerely hope that ICANN legal are NOT interfering with how IANA staff deliver technical services to the community.
What DT-A has done is capture the current performance delivered by IANA as the baseline for any post transition SLE - see the a draft SLE document under discussion attached......
Currently IANA delivers to the community Name Server updates, DS Record updates, WHOIS updates well within a week - and this includes having NTIA in the loop - so having an SLA that stipulates 21days for such tasks is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
Attached is the statistical analysis of current performance based on IANA's data presented to the CWG in March
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/DT-A_Statistical-F...
I genuinely believe IANA staff are trying to provide the information (true IANA needs to invest in monitoring the performance of their RZM systems - but that is trivial, two days of a competent programmers time would provide IANA and the community with the required matrices).
It would be a great shame for ICANN legal to prevent the IANA service which is delivered to the community today from being accurately captured by the SLE Group.... time will tell... and I am optimistic we will receive constructive input.
Best
Paul
Quoting Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
Better read the letter carefully, Paul It is pure 100% distilled essence of ICANN legal. As I read the letter, they have not given you anything that is not already published on the web.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 2:50 PM To: Grace Abuhamad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
Grace,
Many thanks for helping DT-A obtain the current detailed IANA work flow information....
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
Begin forwarded message:
----- Forwarded message from Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane- cwg@icb.co.uk> ----- Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 19:42:18 +0100 From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Reply-To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info. To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>
Thanks Elise
I confirm receipt of the response from ICANN Legal following our DIDP request.
On or after the 12th May 2015, we look forward to receiving the current detailed IANA process workflow documents (with comments as to why any "sensitive" information has been redacted) so we can work cooperatively with you to create a professional Service Level Expectation (SLE) document for the benefit of the whole community.
Have a great w/end
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (8)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Bill Woodcock -
CW Lists -
Gomes, Chuck -
James Gannon -
Milton L Mueller -
Paul M Kane - CWG -
Seun Ojedeji