Triggering of Special IFR
Hello all looking at the slide deck for the presentation (downloadable from https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778352 ), page 12 , I raised a question on the first Webinar. The slide says: "Review cycles: 1st review to occur no more than 2 years post-transition; then every 5 years. Or by special request of CSC, GNSO, or ccNSO (Special IFR)." I took up this sentence and asked: "A Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO, *or* ccNSO? I was under the impression that a Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO *and* ccNSO" only. I was told, in response, that the slide is correct, and an IFR can be launched by the CSC, or ccNSO or GNSO. The *or* vs. *and* is very important. So I looked at the proposal again, Annex F. " Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which may include a public comment period and must include meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR couldbe triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. " To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a special IFR singlehandedly. So is the slide on page 12 and the response I was given on the First Webinar right or wrong? This is a serious issue. Kind regards, Olivier
Olivier, I agree with you understanding in the second instance i.e. as per Annex F. " Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which may include a public comment period and must include meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR could be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. " To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a special IFR singlehandedly. Jonathan From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] Sent: 11 June 2015 08:30 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Triggering of Special IFR Hello all looking at the slide deck for the presentation (downloadable from https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778352 ), page 12 , I raised a question on the first Webinar. The slide says: "Review cycles: 1st review to occur no more than 2 years post-transition; then every 5 years. Or by special request of CSC, GNSO, or ccNSO (Special IFR)." I took up this sentence and asked: "A Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO, *or* ccNSO? I was under the impression that a Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO *and* ccNSO" only. I was told, in response, that the slide is correct, and an IFR can be launched by the CSC, or ccNSO or GNSO. The *or* vs. *and* is very important. So I looked at the proposal again, Annex F. " Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which may include a public comment period and must include meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR could be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. " To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a special IFR singlehandedly. So is the slide on page 12 and the response I was given on the First Webinar right or wrong? This is a serious issue. Kind regards, Olivier
Olivier, I also agree with your understanding. Sorry if that wasn’t clear on the call. Best, Lise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Jonathan Robinson Sendt: 11. juni 2015 09:45 Til: 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Triggering of Special IFR Olivier, I agree with you understanding in the second instance i.e. as per Annex F. " Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which may include a public comment period and must include meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR could be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. " To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a special IFR singlehandedly. Jonathan From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] Sent: 11 June 2015 08:30 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Triggering of Special IFR Hello all looking at the slide deck for the presentation (downloadable from https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778352 ), page 12 , I raised a question on the first Webinar. The slide says: "Review cycles: 1st review to occur no more than 2 years post-transition; then every 5 years. Or by special request of CSC, GNSO, or ccNSO (Special IFR)." I took up this sentence and asked: "A Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO, *or* ccNSO? I was under the impression that a Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO *and* ccNSO" only. I was told, in response, that the slide is correct, and an IFR can be launched by the CSC, or ccNSO or GNSO. The *or* vs. *and* is very important. So I looked at the proposal again, Annex F. " Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which may include a public comment period and must include meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR could be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. " To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a special IFR singlehandedly. So is the slide on page 12 and the response I was given on the First Webinar right or wrong? This is a serious issue. Kind regards, Olivier
In fact, my understanding is that the CSC cannot launch a Special IFR but only escalates to the ccNSO and GNSO for that consideration. Donna/Staffan – please correct me if I am wrong on that. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 3:45 AM To: 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Triggering of Special IFR Olivier, I agree with you understanding in the second instance i.e. as per Annex F. " Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which may include a public comment period and must include meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR could be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. " To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a special IFR singlehandedly. Jonathan From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] Sent: 11 June 2015 08:30 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Triggering of Special IFR Hello all looking at the slide deck for the presentation (downloadable from https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778352 ), page 12 , I raised a question on the first Webinar. The slide says: "Review cycles: 1st review to occur no more than 2 years post-transition; then every 5 years. Or by special request of CSC, GNSO, or ccNSO (Special IFR)." I took up this sentence and asked: "A Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO, *or* ccNSO? I was under the impression that a Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO *and* ccNSO" only. I was told, in response, that the slide is correct, and an IFR can be launched by the CSC, or ccNSO or GNSO. The *or* vs. *and* is very important. So I looked at the proposal again, Annex F. " Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which may include a public comment period and must include meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR could be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. " To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a special IFR singlehandedly. So is the slide on page 12 and the response I was given on the First Webinar right or wrong? This is a serious issue. Kind regards, Olivier
My understanding was the same as Chuck's. Matthew On 6/11/2015 11:53 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
In fact, my understanding is that the CSC cannot launch a Special IFR but only escalates to the ccNSO and GNSO for that consideration. Donna/Staffan – please correct me if I am wrong on that.
Chuck
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 3:45 AM *To:* 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Triggering of Special IFR
Olivier,
I agree with you understanding in the second instance i.e. as per Annex F.
" Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which may include a public comment period and must include meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR could be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. "
To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a special IFR singlehandedly.
Jonathan
*From:*Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] *Sent:* 11 June 2015 08:30 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Triggering of Special IFR
Hello all
looking at the slide deck for the presentation (downloadable from https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778352 ), page 12 , I raised a question on the first Webinar. The slide says: "Review cycles: 1st review to occur no more than 2 years post-transition; then every 5 years. Or by special request of CSC, GNSO, or ccNSO (Special IFR)."
I took up this sentence and asked: "A Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO, *or* ccNSO? I was under the impression that a Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO *and* ccNSO" only.
I was told, in response, that the slide is correct, and an IFR can be launched by the CSC, or ccNSO or GNSO.
The *or* vs. *and* is very important.
So I looked at the proposal again, Annex F.
" Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which may include a public comment period and must include meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR could be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. "
To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a special IFR singlehandedly.
So is the slide on page 12 and the response I was given on the First Webinar right or wrong? This is a serious issue.
Kind regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987
Same as Chuck and Matthew... Greg On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
My understanding was the same as Chuck's.
Matthew
On 6/11/2015 11:53 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
In fact, my understanding is that the CSC cannot launch a Special IFR but only escalates to the ccNSO and GNSO for that consideration. Donna/Staffan – please correct me if I am wrong on that.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] * On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 3:45 AM *To:* 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Triggering of Special IFR
Olivier,
I agree with you understanding in the second instance i.e. as per Annex F.
" Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which may include a public comment period and must include meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR could be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. "
To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a special IFR singlehandedly.
Jonathan
*From:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com <ocl@gih.com>] *Sent:* 11 June 2015 08:30 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Triggering of Special IFR
Hello all
looking at the slide deck for the presentation (downloadable from https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778352 ), page 12 , I raised a question on the first Webinar. The slide says: "Review cycles: 1st review to occur no more than 2 years post-transition; then every 5 years. Or by special request of CSC, GNSO, or ccNSO (Special IFR)."
I took up this sentence and asked: "A Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO, *or* ccNSO? I was under the impression that a Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO *and* ccNSO" only.
I was told, in response, that the slide is correct, and an IFR can be launched by the CSC, or ccNSO or GNSO.
The *or* vs. *and* is very important.
So I looked at the proposal again, Annex F.
" Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which may include a public comment period and must include meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR could be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. "
To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a special IFR singlehandedly.
So is the slide on page 12 and the response I was given on the First Webinar right or wrong? This is a serious issue.
Kind regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 (0)771 247 2987
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Your understanding is correct Chuck. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, 11 June 2015 3:53 AM To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Triggering of Special IFR In fact, my understanding is that the CSC cannot launch a Special IFR but only escalates to the ccNSO and GNSO for that consideration. Donna/Staffan – please correct me if I am wrong on that. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 3:45 AM To: 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Triggering of Special IFR Olivier, I agree with you understanding in the second instance i.e. as per Annex F. " Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which may include a public comment period and must include meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR could be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. " To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a special IFR singlehandedly. Jonathan From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] Sent: 11 June 2015 08:30 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Triggering of Special IFR Hello all looking at the slide deck for the presentation (downloadable from https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778352 ), page 12 , I raised a question on the first Webinar. The slide says: "Review cycles: 1st review to occur no more than 2 years post-transition; then every 5 years. Or by special request of CSC, GNSO, or ccNSO (Special IFR)." I took up this sentence and asked: "A Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO, *or* ccNSO? I was under the impression that a Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO *and* ccNSO" only. I was told, in response, that the slide is correct, and an IFR can be launched by the CSC, or ccNSO or GNSO. The *or* vs. *and* is very important. So I looked at the proposal again, Annex F. " Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which may include a public comment period and must include meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR could be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. " To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a special IFR singlehandedly. So is the slide on page 12 and the response I was given on the First Webinar right or wrong? This is a serious issue. Kind regards, Olivier
As stated in my previous message, I do not believe the CSC may launch a Special IFR. I definitely think that should be corrected unless I have that wrong. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 3:30 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Triggering of Special IFR Hello all looking at the slide deck for the presentation (downloadable from https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778352 ), page 12 , I raised a question on the first Webinar. The slide says: "Review cycles: 1st review to occur no more than 2 years post-transition; then every 5 years. Or by special request of CSC, GNSO, or ccNSO (Special IFR)." I took up this sentence and asked: "A Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO, *or* ccNSO? I was under the impression that a Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO *and* ccNSO" only. I was told, in response, that the slide is correct, and an IFR can be launched by the CSC, or ccNSO or GNSO. The *or* vs. *and* is very important. So I looked at the proposal again, Annex F. " Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which may include a public comment period and must include meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR could be triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. " To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a special IFR singlehandedly. So is the slide on page 12 and the response I was given on the First Webinar right or wrong? This is a serious issue. Kind regards, Olivier
Dear all I am pleased to advise we are making good progress now... and in light of the winding down of the CWG - to ensure our work is empowered to continue as discussd last week, may I propose that we rename DT-A - the SLE Ad-hoc Working Group (SLE WG). 1) The CWG has the work of the SLE Design Team as a Community initiative in the proposal - I ask that Design Team will be renamed to SLE Ad-Hoc Working Group (SLE WG). 2) IANA and Adam (my guy) are going to refine the SLE and then present that to the WG for adoption (approx 4 weeks to finish). 3) Once agreed, IANA will develop an Implementation plan (2 weeks) including an internal ICANN request for Technical Resources. 4) The Implementation plan needs NTIA approval (Kim and I will work with NTIA to secure approval) - 2 weeks. 5) Once NTIA has approved, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed.- 1 month 6) IANA will then for 2 to 3 months run a trial capturing real world transaction information and provide that to the WG 7) With real world data (that IANA is comfortable with) - we will populate the agreed thresholds for the SLE. 8) With the SLE data specified (Jan/Feb 2016), the SLE will be in place and ready for the Implementation Phase.Checking of the SLE during the Implementation Phase 9) SLE in place from the date of Transition ! Hope this is helpful Best Paul
Paul, Mostly this looks pretty good to me but there is one thing that is different than what I understood from discussions earlier this week. My understanding was that the CSC would consider the SLEs proposed by the SLE WG after it is formed, i.e., after the transition occurs and that the SLEs would hence be implemented after the transition. I note in your item 9) below: " SLE in place from the date of Transition ". Which is correct? I personally like the idea of the SLEs being in place at transition, but if that is going to be the case I think there needs to be some check point(s) with the community including direct customers during the implementation process to ensure that the final SLEs are acceptable. I raised this issue in the CWG call on Tuesday and understood that those check points would not be needed before transition because the CSC would be dealing with this after transition. I don't think resolution of this is needed now but it certainly is needed before the implementation process is started. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:08 AM To: dt1@icann.org Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward..... Dear all I am pleased to advise we are making good progress now... and in light of the winding down of the CWG - to ensure our work is empowered to continue as discussd last week, may I propose that we rename DT-A - the SLE Ad-hoc Working Group (SLE WG). 1) The CWG has the work of the SLE Design Team as a Community initiative in the proposal - I ask that Design Team will be renamed to SLE Ad-Hoc Working Group (SLE WG). 2) IANA and Adam (my guy) are going to refine the SLE and then present that to the WG for adoption (approx 4 weeks to finish). 3) Once agreed, IANA will develop an Implementation plan (2 weeks) including an internal ICANN request for Technical Resources. 4) The Implementation plan needs NTIA approval (Kim and I will work with NTIA to secure approval) - 2 weeks. 5) Once NTIA has approved, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed.- 1 month 6) IANA will then for 2 to 3 months run a trial capturing real world transaction information and provide that to the WG 7) With real world data (that IANA is comfortable with) - we will populate the agreed thresholds for the SLE. 8) With the SLE data specified (Jan/Feb 2016), the SLE will be in place and ready for the Implementation Phase.Checking of the SLE during the Implementation Phase 9) SLE in place from the date of Transition ! Hope this is helpful Best Paul _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Chuck Yes - the plan is that we have an SLE in place from the start of the transition, developed by IANA and SLE WG but ICANN/IANA need to be confident that the thresholds are reasonable and that there is a mechanism in place to review them after the transition - that the role of the CSC. That's the end goal but how to get there......? In the next month or so the SLE framework should be completed (without thresholds being specified). We need to ask NTIA for permission to run tests to help populate the SLE... which is a pre-implementation phase and community check point (1). The pre-implementation phase needs to be based on real-world testing and statistics gathering upon which the thresholds will be determined by IANA working with the SLE WG. The SLE is then completed and before being finalized there will be a short period of community check point (2) for the purpose of checking that all issues have been addressed. The SLE will then be submitted along with the rest of the proposal to NTIA for review...and if approved progresses to the Implementation Phase. The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience. Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review. Hope I've answered your questions. best Paul Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Paul,
Mostly this looks pretty good to me but there is one thing that is different than what I understood from discussions earlier this week. My understanding was that the CSC would consider the SLEs proposed by the SLE WG after it is formed, i.e., after the transition occurs and that the SLEs would hence be implemented after the transition. I note in your item 9) below: " SLE in place from the date of Transition ". Which is correct?
I personally like the idea of the SLEs being in place at transition, but if that is going to be the case I think there needs to be some check point(s) with the community including direct customers during the implementation process to ensure that the final SLEs are acceptable. I raised this issue in the CWG call on Tuesday and understood that those check points would not be needed before transition because the CSC would be dealing with this after transition.
I don't think resolution of this is needed now but it certainly is needed before the implementation process is started.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:08 AM To: dt1@icann.org Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Dear all
I am pleased to advise we are making good progress now... and in light of the winding down of the CWG - to ensure our work is empowered to continue as discussd last week, may I propose that we rename DT-A - the SLE Ad-hoc Working Group (SLE WG).
1) The CWG has the work of the SLE Design Team as a Community initiative in the proposal - I ask that Design Team will be renamed to SLE Ad-Hoc Working Group (SLE WG). 2) IANA and Adam (my guy) are going to refine the SLE and then present that to the WG for adoption (approx 4 weeks to finish). 3) Once agreed, IANA will develop an Implementation plan (2 weeks) including an internal ICANN request for Technical Resources. 4) The Implementation plan needs NTIA approval (Kim and I will work with NTIA to secure approval) - 2 weeks. 5) Once NTIA has approved, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed.- 1 month 6) IANA will then for 2 to 3 months run a trial capturing real world transaction information and provide that to the WG 7) With real world data (that IANA is comfortable with) - we will populate the agreed thresholds for the SLE. 8) With the SLE data specified (Jan/Feb 2016), the SLE will be in place and ready for the Implementation Phase.Checking of the SLE during the Implementation Phase 9) SLE in place from the date of Transition !
Hope this is helpful
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Paul. Let me make sure I understand correctly. 1. In the next 4 weeks: DT-A & IANA will develop an SLE framework and obtain approval by the SLE WG. 2. In the following 2 weeks: IANA will develop an implementation plan. 3. In two weeks after that, you and Kim will seek NTIA approval to test and implement the plan. 4. In the next month, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed. 5. In 2-3 months after the ability to extract times, proposed SLEs will be tested by IANA in cooperation with the SLE WG. 6. The SLE is completed at this point. 7. In the Jan/Feb 2016 timeframe the implementation phase will begin. The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience. 8. The SLE will be in place at the time of transition. 9. Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review. I tried to figure out where the two community check points fit into this but had trouble doing that. What will the communication check points entail? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:46 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: dt1@icann.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward..... Thanks Chuck Yes - the plan is that we have an SLE in place from the start of the transition, developed by IANA and SLE WG but ICANN/IANA need to be confident that the thresholds are reasonable and that there is a mechanism in place to review them after the transition - that the role of the CSC. That's the end goal but how to get there......? In the next month or so the SLE framework should be completed (without thresholds being specified). We need to ask NTIA for permission to run tests to help populate the SLE... which is a pre-implementation phase and community check point (1). The pre-implementation phase needs to be based on real-world testing and statistics gathering upon which the thresholds will be determined by IANA working with the SLE WG. The SLE is then completed and before being finalized there will be a short period of community check point (2) for the purpose of checking that all issues have been addressed. The SLE will then be submitted along with the rest of the proposal to NTIA for review...and if approved progresses to the Implementation Phase. The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience. Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review. Hope I've answered your questions. best Paul Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Paul,
Mostly this looks pretty good to me but there is one thing that is different than what I understood from discussions earlier this week. My understanding was that the CSC would consider the SLEs proposed by the SLE WG after it is formed, i.e., after the transition occurs and that the SLEs would hence be implemented after the transition. I note in your item 9) below: " SLE in place from the date of Transition ". Which is correct?
I personally like the idea of the SLEs being in place at transition, but if that is going to be the case I think there needs to be some check point(s) with the community including direct customers during the implementation process to ensure that the final SLEs are acceptable. I raised this issue in the CWG call on Tuesday and understood that those check points would not be needed before transition because the CSC would be dealing with this after transition.
I don't think resolution of this is needed now but it certainly is needed before the implementation process is started.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:08 AM To: dt1@icann.org Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Dear all
I am pleased to advise we are making good progress now... and in light of the winding down of the CWG - to ensure our work is empowered to continue as discussd last week, may I propose that we rename DT-A - the SLE Ad-hoc Working Group (SLE WG).
1) The CWG has the work of the SLE Design Team as a Community initiative in the proposal - I ask that Design Team will be renamed to SLE Ad-Hoc Working Group (SLE WG). 2) IANA and Adam (my guy) are going to refine the SLE and then present that to the WG for adoption (approx 4 weeks to finish). 3) Once agreed, IANA will develop an Implementation plan (2 weeks) including an internal ICANN request for Technical Resources. 4) The Implementation plan needs NTIA approval (Kim and I will work with NTIA to secure approval) - 2 weeks. 5) Once NTIA has approved, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed.- 1 month 6) IANA will then for 2 to 3 months run a trial capturing real world transaction information and provide that to the WG 7) With real world data (that IANA is comfortable with) - we will populate the agreed thresholds for the SLE. 8) With the SLE data specified (Jan/Feb 2016), the SLE will be in place and ready for the Implementation Phase.Checking of the SLE during the Implementation Phase 9) SLE in place from the date of Transition !
Hope this is helpful
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Chuck Sorry for the confusion..... The intent is to publish the then current document at regular intervals... the communication check point is the publication on the ICANN Wiki site for the SLE WG of the then current document under development and an email address for members of the community to raise any errors/omissions/comments to that iteration of the document. Best Paul Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Thanks Paul. Let me make sure I understand correctly.
1. In the next 4 weeks: DT-A & IANA will develop an SLE framework and obtain approval by the SLE WG. 2. In the following 2 weeks: IANA will develop an implementation plan. 3. In two weeks after that, you and Kim will seek NTIA approval to test and implement the plan. 4. In the next month, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed. 5. In 2-3 months after the ability to extract times, proposed SLEs will be tested by IANA in cooperation with the SLE WG. 6. The SLE is completed at this point. 7. In the Jan/Feb 2016 timeframe the implementation phase will begin. The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience. 8. The SLE will be in place at the time of transition. 9. Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
I tried to figure out where the two community check points fit into this but had trouble doing that.
What will the communication check points entail?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:46 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: dt1@icann.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Thanks Chuck
Yes - the plan is that we have an SLE in place from the start of the transition, developed by IANA and SLE WG but ICANN/IANA need to be confident that the thresholds are reasonable and that there is a mechanism in place to review them after the transition - that the role of the CSC. That's the end goal but how to get there......?
In the next month or so the SLE framework should be completed (without thresholds being specified).
We need to ask NTIA for permission to run tests to help populate the SLE... which is a pre-implementation phase and community check point (1). The pre-implementation phase needs to be based on real-world testing and statistics gathering upon which the thresholds will be determined by IANA working with the SLE WG.
The SLE is then completed and before being finalized there will be a short period of community check point (2) for the purpose of checking that all issues have been addressed. The SLE will then be submitted along with the rest of the proposal to NTIA for review...and if approved progresses to the Implementation Phase.
The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience.
Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
Hope I've answered your questions.
best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Paul,
Mostly this looks pretty good to me but there is one thing that is different than what I understood from discussions earlier this week. My understanding was that the CSC would consider the SLEs proposed by the SLE WG after it is formed, i.e., after the transition occurs and that the SLEs would hence be implemented after the transition. I note in your item 9) below: " SLE in place from the date of Transition ". Which is correct?
I personally like the idea of the SLEs being in place at transition, but if that is going to be the case I think there needs to be some check point(s) with the community including direct customers during the implementation process to ensure that the final SLEs are acceptable. I raised this issue in the CWG call on Tuesday and understood that those check points would not be needed before transition because the CSC would be dealing with this after transition.
I don't think resolution of this is needed now but it certainly is needed before the implementation process is started.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:08 AM To: dt1@icann.org Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Dear all
I am pleased to advise we are making good progress now... and in light of the winding down of the CWG - to ensure our work is empowered to continue as discussd last week, may I propose that we rename DT-A - the SLE Ad-hoc Working Group (SLE WG).
1) The CWG has the work of the SLE Design Team as a Community initiative in the proposal - I ask that Design Team will be renamed to SLE Ad-Hoc Working Group (SLE WG). 2) IANA and Adam (my guy) are going to refine the SLE and then present that to the WG for adoption (approx 4 weeks to finish). 3) Once agreed, IANA will develop an Implementation plan (2 weeks) including an internal ICANN request for Technical Resources. 4) The Implementation plan needs NTIA approval (Kim and I will work with NTIA to secure approval) - 2 weeks. 5) Once NTIA has approved, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed.- 1 month 6) IANA will then for 2 to 3 months run a trial capturing real world transaction information and provide that to the WG 7) With real world data (that IANA is comfortable with) - we will populate the agreed thresholds for the SLE. 8) With the SLE data specified (Jan/Feb 2016), the SLE will be in place and ready for the Implementation Phase.Checking of the SLE during the Implementation Phase 9) SLE in place from the date of Transition !
Hope this is helpful
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Paul. Was the list of steps I listed accurate? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:46 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: dt1@icann.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward..... Thanks Chuck Sorry for the confusion..... The intent is to publish the then current document at regular intervals... the communication check point is the publication on the ICANN Wiki site for the SLE WG of the then current document under development and an email address for members of the community to raise any errors/omissions/comments to that iteration of the document. Best Paul Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Thanks Paul. Let me make sure I understand correctly.
1. In the next 4 weeks: DT-A & IANA will develop an SLE framework and obtain approval by the SLE WG. 2. In the following 2 weeks: IANA will develop an implementation plan. 3. In two weeks after that, you and Kim will seek NTIA approval to test and implement the plan. 4. In the next month, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed. 5. In 2-3 months after the ability to extract times, proposed SLEs will be tested by IANA in cooperation with the SLE WG. 6. The SLE is completed at this point. 7. In the Jan/Feb 2016 timeframe the implementation phase will begin. The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience. 8. The SLE will be in place at the time of transition. 9. Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
I tried to figure out where the two community check points fit into this but had trouble doing that.
What will the communication check points entail?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:46 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: dt1@icann.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Thanks Chuck
Yes - the plan is that we have an SLE in place from the start of the transition, developed by IANA and SLE WG but ICANN/IANA need to be confident that the thresholds are reasonable and that there is a mechanism in place to review them after the transition - that the role of the CSC. That's the end goal but how to get there......?
In the next month or so the SLE framework should be completed (without thresholds being specified).
We need to ask NTIA for permission to run tests to help populate the SLE... which is a pre-implementation phase and community check point (1). The pre-implementation phase needs to be based on real-world testing and statistics gathering upon which the thresholds will be determined by IANA working with the SLE WG.
The SLE is then completed and before being finalized there will be a short period of community check point (2) for the purpose of checking that all issues have been addressed. The SLE will then be submitted along with the rest of the proposal to NTIA for review...and if approved progresses to the Implementation Phase.
The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience.
Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
Hope I've answered your questions.
best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Paul,
Mostly this looks pretty good to me but there is one thing that is different than what I understood from discussions earlier this week. My understanding was that the CSC would consider the SLEs proposed by the SLE WG after it is formed, i.e., after the transition occurs and that the SLEs would hence be implemented after the transition. I note in your item 9) below: " SLE in place from the date of Transition ". Which is correct?
I personally like the idea of the SLEs being in place at transition, but if that is going to be the case I think there needs to be some check point(s) with the community including direct customers during the implementation process to ensure that the final SLEs are acceptable. I raised this issue in the CWG call on Tuesday and understood that those check points would not be needed before transition because the CSC would be dealing with this after transition.
I don't think resolution of this is needed now but it certainly is needed before the implementation process is started.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:08 AM To: dt1@icann.org Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Dear all
I am pleased to advise we are making good progress now... and in light of the winding down of the CWG - to ensure our work is empowered to continue as discussd last week, may I propose that we rename DT-A - the SLE Ad-hoc Working Group (SLE WG).
1) The CWG has the work of the SLE Design Team as a Community initiative in the proposal - I ask that Design Team will be renamed to SLE Ad-Hoc Working Group (SLE WG). 2) IANA and Adam (my guy) are going to refine the SLE and then present that to the WG for adoption (approx 4 weeks to finish). 3) Once agreed, IANA will develop an Implementation plan (2 weeks) including an internal ICANN request for Technical Resources. 4) The Implementation plan needs NTIA approval (Kim and I will work with NTIA to secure approval) - 2 weeks. 5) Once NTIA has approved, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed.- 1 month 6) IANA will then for 2 to 3 months run a trial capturing real world transaction information and provide that to the WG 7) With real world data (that IANA is comfortable with) - we will populate the agreed thresholds for the SLE. 8) With the SLE data specified (Jan/Feb 2016), the SLE will be in place and ready for the Implementation Phase.Checking of the SLE during the Implementation Phase 9) SLE in place from the date of Transition !
Hope this is helpful
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hello! The transition began in many folks' eyes as a simple administrative matter. Certain stakeholders have - for the moment - succeeded in escalating the transition into a political process on a par with the creation of ICANN itself at the time. Although we have not yet heard in public from the governments. Who were determinant at that time. What we are now witnessing is a further escalation into multiple technical and intellectual property details, as reported on this List. May I say that those who think themselves responsible for this "drift" (if that is the contemporary terminology) are shooting themselves in their feet. First I recommend that certain postings, particularly those relating to US law, are translated into the other working languages. Let us than see whether that is comprehensible, world wide. Secondly, as I was once told "welcome to the goldfish bowl". Those who would support the transition, are finding it increasingly difficult to make the case, given that the leading exponents of the present debate clearly think of themselves as parties in the final outcome. Barring, of course, conflicts of interest under anti-trust policy. Would you go to your Board, your Cabinet and Parliament, your NGO and say 'Yes'? As things stand at present, I don't think so. CW PS: The recent exchanges between Paul and Chuck, being a case in point, are far from the crux of the matter. On 11 Jun 2015, at 20:07, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Paul. Let me make sure I understand correctly.
1. In the next 4 weeks: DT-A & IANA will develop an SLE framework and obtain approval by the SLE WG. 2. In the following 2 weeks: IANA will develop an implementation plan. 3. In two weeks after that, you and Kim will seek NTIA approval to test and implement the plan. 4. In the next month, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed. 5. In 2-3 months after the ability to extract times, proposed SLEs will be tested by IANA in cooperation with the SLE WG. 6. The SLE is completed at this point. 7. In the Jan/Feb 2016 timeframe the implementation phase will begin. The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience. 8. The SLE will be in place at the time of transition. 9. Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
I tried to figure out where the two community check points fit into this but had trouble doing that.
What will the communication check points entail?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:46 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: dt1@icann.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Thanks Chuck
Yes - the plan is that we have an SLE in place from the start of the transition, developed by IANA and SLE WG but ICANN/IANA need to be confident that the thresholds are reasonable and that there is a mechanism in place to review them after the transition - that the role of the CSC. That's the end goal but how to get there......?
In the next month or so the SLE framework should be completed (without thresholds being specified).
We need to ask NTIA for permission to run tests to help populate the SLE... which is a pre-implementation phase and community check point (1). The pre-implementation phase needs to be based on real-world testing and statistics gathering upon which the thresholds will be determined by IANA working with the SLE WG.
The SLE is then completed and before being finalized there will be a short period of community check point (2) for the purpose of checking that all issues have been addressed. The SLE will then be submitted along with the rest of the proposal to NTIA for review...and if approved progresses to the Implementation Phase.
The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience.
Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
Hope I've answered your questions.
best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Paul,
Mostly this looks pretty good to me but there is one thing that is different than what I understood from discussions earlier this week. My understanding was that the CSC would consider the SLEs proposed by the SLE WG after it is formed, i.e., after the transition occurs and that the SLEs would hence be implemented after the transition. I note in your item 9) below: " SLE in place from the date of Transition ". Which is correct?
I personally like the idea of the SLEs being in place at transition, but if that is going to be the case I think there needs to be some check point(s) with the community including direct customers during the implementation process to ensure that the final SLEs are acceptable. I raised this issue in the CWG call on Tuesday and understood that those check points would not be needed before transition because the CSC would be dealing with this after transition.
I don't think resolution of this is needed now but it certainly is needed before the implementation process is started.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:08 AM To: dt1@icann.org Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Dear all
I am pleased to advise we are making good progress now... and in light of the winding down of the CWG - to ensure our work is empowered to continue as discussd last week, may I propose that we rename DT-A - the SLE Ad-hoc Working Group (SLE WG).
1) The CWG has the work of the SLE Design Team as a Community initiative in the proposal - I ask that Design Team will be renamed to SLE Ad-Hoc Working Group (SLE WG). 2) IANA and Adam (my guy) are going to refine the SLE and then present that to the WG for adoption (approx 4 weeks to finish). 3) Once agreed, IANA will develop an Implementation plan (2 weeks) including an internal ICANN request for Technical Resources. 4) The Implementation plan needs NTIA approval (Kim and I will work with NTIA to secure approval) - 2 weeks. 5) Once NTIA has approved, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed.- 1 month 6) IANA will then for 2 to 3 months run a trial capturing real world transaction information and provide that to the WG 7) With real world data (that IANA is comfortable with) - we will populate the agreed thresholds for the SLE. 8) With the SLE data specified (Jan/Feb 2016), the SLE will be in place and ready for the Implementation Phase.Checking of the SLE during the Implementation Phase 9) SLE in place from the date of Transition !
Hope this is helpful
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ 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, As the person tagged with the responsibility for overseeing ICANN's development of the code associated with implementing the SLEs (among other things), I'd just like to point out that the implementation of this hasn't really been discussed, either internally within the development team or with NTIA (at least by ICANN). We've discussed the SLEs for IANA's component of Root Zone Management on a very interim level within the IANA team, and the development team leader has been involved in discussions relating to some of the metrics we'll likely want to start capturing, but that is the extent of it so far. It may also be worth pointing out that other operational communities are working on SL{A,E}s that will impact implementation schedules. I'm also a bit curious: since implementation of root zone changes involves more than ICANN, has the Root Zone Maintainer been involved in the development of these SLEs and been equally committed by others to the implementation plan described below? I had thought the plan was to maintain the existing SLAs as defined by NTIA and the IETF until after the transition and then to evolve those SLAs to meet the community (not just the names community) requirements. Was I mistaken? I'd note that Paul's estimate of how long the implementation of the names SLEs will take for this single recommendation may help inform the CWG in forming its full implementation timeline which is due to ICG. Thanks, -drc -----Original Message----- From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:07 AM To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Cc: "dt1@icann.org" <dt1@icann.org>, CWG Mailing List <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Thanks Paul. Let me make sure I understand correctly.
1. In the next 4 weeks: DT-A & IANA will develop an SLE framework and obtain approval by the SLE WG. 2. In the following 2 weeks: IANA will develop an implementation plan. 3. In two weeks after that, you and Kim will seek NTIA approval to test and implement the plan. 4. In the next month, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed. 5. In 2-3 months after the ability to extract times, proposed SLEs will be tested by IANA in cooperation with the SLE WG. 6. The SLE is completed at this point. 7. In the Jan/Feb 2016 timeframe the implementation phase will begin. The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience. 8. The SLE will be in place at the time of transition. 9. Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
I tried to figure out where the two community check points fit into this but had trouble doing that.
What will the communication check points entail?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:46 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: dt1@icann.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Thanks Chuck
Yes - the plan is that we have an SLE in place from the start of the transition, developed by IANA and SLE WG but ICANN/IANA need to be confident that the thresholds are reasonable and that there is a mechanism in place to review them after the transition - that the role of the CSC. That's the end goal but how to get there......?
In the next month or so the SLE framework should be completed (without thresholds being specified).
We need to ask NTIA for permission to run tests to help populate the SLE... which is a pre-implementation phase and community check point (1). The pre-implementation phase needs to be based on real-world testing and statistics gathering upon which the thresholds will be determined by IANA working with the SLE WG.
The SLE is then completed and before being finalized there will be a short period of community check point (2) for the purpose of checking that all issues have been addressed. The SLE will then be submitted along with the rest of the proposal to NTIA for review...and if approved progresses to the Implementation Phase.
The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience.
Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
Hope I've answered your questions.
best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Paul,
Mostly this looks pretty good to me but there is one thing that is different than what I understood from discussions earlier this week. My understanding was that the CSC would consider the SLEs proposed by the SLE WG after it is formed, i.e., after the transition occurs and that the SLEs would hence be implemented after the transition. I note in your item 9) below: " SLE in place from the date of Transition ". Which is correct?
I personally like the idea of the SLEs being in place at transition, but if that is going to be the case I think there needs to be some check point(s) with the community including direct customers during the implementation process to ensure that the final SLEs are acceptable. I raised this issue in the CWG call on Tuesday and understood that those check points would not be needed before transition because the CSC would be dealing with this after transition.
I don't think resolution of this is needed now but it certainly is needed before the implementation process is started.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:08 AM To: dt1@icann.org Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Dear all
I am pleased to advise we are making good progress now... and in light of the winding down of the CWG - to ensure our work is empowered to continue as discussd last week, may I propose that we rename DT-A - the SLE Ad-hoc Working Group (SLE WG).
1) The CWG has the work of the SLE Design Team as a Community initiative in the proposal - I ask that Design Team will be renamed to SLE Ad-Hoc Working Group (SLE WG). 2) IANA and Adam (my guy) are going to refine the SLE and then present that to the WG for adoption (approx 4 weeks to finish). 3) Once agreed, IANA will develop an Implementation plan (2 weeks) including an internal ICANN request for Technical Resources. 4) The Implementation plan needs NTIA approval (Kim and I will work with NTIA to secure approval) - 2 weeks. 5) Once NTIA has approved, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed.- 1 month 6) IANA will then for 2 to 3 months run a trial capturing real world transaction information and provide that to the WG 7) With real world data (that IANA is comfortable with) - we will populate the agreed thresholds for the SLE. 8) With the SLE data specified (Jan/Feb 2016), the SLE will be in place and ready for the Implementation Phase.Checking of the SLE during the Implementation Phase 9) SLE in place from the date of Transition !
Hope this is helpful
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ 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
David, I am only responding to your question about the Root Zone Maintainer involvement. I have been monitoring the progress of the SLEs and have been involving our lead person in that regard. So far there are only a few SLEs that would impact the Maintainer roll. I communicated to Paul that some of the listed thresholds might impact the process that Verisign uses, which is very comprehensive. We will look at those again once they progress further and we definitely will cooperate however needed in this regard. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:50 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Paul M Kane - CWG Cc: dt1@icann.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward..... Hi, As the person tagged with the responsibility for overseeing ICANN's development of the code associated with implementing the SLEs (among other things), I'd just like to point out that the implementation of this hasn't really been discussed, either internally within the development team or with NTIA (at least by ICANN). We've discussed the SLEs for IANA's component of Root Zone Management on a very interim level within the IANA team, and the development team leader has been involved in discussions relating to some of the metrics we'll likely want to start capturing, but that is the extent of it so far. It may also be worth pointing out that other operational communities are working on SL{A,E}s that will impact implementation schedules. I'm also a bit curious: since implementation of root zone changes involves more than ICANN, has the Root Zone Maintainer been involved in the development of these SLEs and been equally committed by others to the implementation plan described below? I had thought the plan was to maintain the existing SLAs as defined by NTIA and the IETF until after the transition and then to evolve those SLAs to meet the community (not just the names community) requirements. Was I mistaken? I'd note that Paul's estimate of how long the implementation of the names SLEs will take for this single recommendation may help inform the CWG in forming its full implementation timeline which is due to ICG. Thanks, -drc -----Original Message----- From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:07 AM To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Cc: "dt1@icann.org" <dt1@icann.org>, CWG Mailing List <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Thanks Paul. Let me make sure I understand correctly.
1. In the next 4 weeks: DT-A & IANA will develop an SLE framework and obtain approval by the SLE WG. 2. In the following 2 weeks: IANA will develop an implementation plan. 3. In two weeks after that, you and Kim will seek NTIA approval to test and implement the plan. 4. In the next month, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed. 5. In 2-3 months after the ability to extract times, proposed SLEs will be tested by IANA in cooperation with the SLE WG. 6. The SLE is completed at this point. 7. In the Jan/Feb 2016 timeframe the implementation phase will begin. The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience. 8. The SLE will be in place at the time of transition. 9. Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
I tried to figure out where the two community check points fit into this but had trouble doing that.
What will the communication check points entail?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:46 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: dt1@icann.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Thanks Chuck
Yes - the plan is that we have an SLE in place from the start of the transition, developed by IANA and SLE WG but ICANN/IANA need to be confident that the thresholds are reasonable and that there is a mechanism in place to review them after the transition - that the role of the CSC. That's the end goal but how to get there......?
In the next month or so the SLE framework should be completed (without thresholds being specified).
We need to ask NTIA for permission to run tests to help populate the SLE... which is a pre-implementation phase and community check point (1). The pre-implementation phase needs to be based on real-world testing and statistics gathering upon which the thresholds will be determined by IANA working with the SLE WG.
The SLE is then completed and before being finalized there will be a short period of community check point (2) for the purpose of checking that all issues have been addressed. The SLE will then be submitted along with the rest of the proposal to NTIA for review...and if approved progresses to the Implementation Phase.
The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience.
Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
Hope I've answered your questions.
best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Paul,
Mostly this looks pretty good to me but there is one thing that is different than what I understood from discussions earlier this week. My understanding was that the CSC would consider the SLEs proposed by the SLE WG after it is formed, i.e., after the transition occurs and that the SLEs would hence be implemented after the transition. I note in your item 9) below: " SLE in place from the date of Transition ". Which is correct?
I personally like the idea of the SLEs being in place at transition, but if that is going to be the case I think there needs to be some check point(s) with the community including direct customers during the implementation process to ensure that the final SLEs are acceptable. I raised this issue in the CWG call on Tuesday and understood that those check points would not be needed before transition because the CSC would be dealing with this after transition.
I don't think resolution of this is needed now but it certainly is needed before the implementation process is started.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:08 AM To: dt1@icann.org Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Dear all
I am pleased to advise we are making good progress now... and in light of the winding down of the CWG - to ensure our work is empowered to continue as discussd last week, may I propose that we rename DT-A - the SLE Ad-hoc Working Group (SLE WG).
1) The CWG has the work of the SLE Design Team as a Community initiative in the proposal - I ask that Design Team will be renamed to SLE Ad-Hoc Working Group (SLE WG). 2) IANA and Adam (my guy) are going to refine the SLE and then present that to the WG for adoption (approx 4 weeks to finish). 3) Once agreed, IANA will develop an Implementation plan (2 weeks) including an internal ICANN request for Technical Resources. 4) The Implementation plan needs NTIA approval (Kim and I will work with NTIA to secure approval) - 2 weeks. 5) Once NTIA has approved, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed.- 1 month 6) IANA will then for 2 to 3 months run a trial capturing real world transaction information and provide that to the WG 7) With real world data (that IANA is comfortable with) - we will populate the agreed thresholds for the SLE. 8) With the SLE data specified (Jan/Feb 2016), the SLE will be in place and ready for the Implementation Phase.Checking of the SLE during the Implementation Phase 9) SLE in place from the date of Transition !
Hope this is helpful
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ 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 Chuck, If you think there are some that would indeed affect verisign then why did we have to still proceed with it in our proposal. Secondly when you say "you have discussed with Paul" I hope you meant you formerly flagged this within the DT. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 11 Jun 2015 21:59, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
David,
I am only responding to your question about the Root Zone Maintainer involvement. I have been monitoring the progress of the SLEs and have been involving our lead person in that regard. So far there are only a few SLEs that would impact the Maintainer roll. I communicated to Paul that some of the listed thresholds might impact the process that Verisign uses, which is very comprehensive. We will look at those again once they progress further and we definitely will cooperate however needed in this regard.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:50 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Paul M Kane - CWG Cc: dt1@icann.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Hi,
As the person tagged with the responsibility for overseeing ICANN's development of the code associated with implementing the SLEs (among other things), I'd just like to point out that the implementation of this hasn't really been discussed, either internally within the development team or with NTIA (at least by ICANN). We've discussed the SLEs for IANA's component of Root Zone Management on a very interim level within the IANA team, and the development team leader has been involved in discussions relating to some of the metrics we'll likely want to start capturing, but that is the extent of it so far. It may also be worth pointing out that other operational communities are working on SL{A,E}s that will impact implementation schedules.
I'm also a bit curious: since implementation of root zone changes involves more than ICANN, has the Root Zone Maintainer been involved in the development of these SLEs and been equally committed by others to the implementation plan described below?
I had thought the plan was to maintain the existing SLAs as defined by NTIA and the IETF until after the transition and then to evolve those SLAs to meet the community (not just the names community) requirements. Was I mistaken?
I'd note that Paul's estimate of how long the implementation of the names SLEs will take for this single recommendation may help inform the CWG in forming its full implementation timeline which is due to ICG.
Thanks, -drc
-----Original Message----- From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:07 AM To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Cc: "dt1@icann.org" <dt1@icann.org>, CWG Mailing List <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Thanks Paul. Let me make sure I understand correctly.
1. In the next 4 weeks: DT-A & IANA will develop an SLE framework and obtain approval by the SLE WG. 2. In the following 2 weeks: IANA will develop an implementation plan. 3. In two weeks after that, you and Kim will seek NTIA approval to test and implement the plan. 4. In the next month, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed. 5. In 2-3 months after the ability to extract times, proposed SLEs will be tested by IANA in cooperation with the SLE WG. 6. The SLE is completed at this point. 7. In the Jan/Feb 2016 timeframe the implementation phase will begin. The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience. 8. The SLE will be in place at the time of transition. 9. Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
I tried to figure out where the two community check points fit into this but had trouble doing that.
What will the communication check points entail?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:46 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: dt1@icann.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Thanks Chuck
Yes - the plan is that we have an SLE in place from the start of the transition, developed by IANA and SLE WG but ICANN/IANA need to be confident that the thresholds are reasonable and that there is a mechanism in place to review them after the transition - that the role of the CSC. That's the end goal but how to get there......?
In the next month or so the SLE framework should be completed (without thresholds being specified).
We need to ask NTIA for permission to run tests to help populate the SLE... which is a pre-implementation phase and community check point (1). The pre-implementation phase needs to be based on real-world testing and statistics gathering upon which the thresholds will be determined by IANA working with the SLE WG.
The SLE is then completed and before being finalized there will be a short period of community check point (2) for the purpose of checking that all issues have been addressed. The SLE will then be submitted along with the rest of the proposal to NTIA for review...and if approved progresses to the Implementation Phase.
The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience.
Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
Hope I've answered your questions.
best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Paul,
Mostly this looks pretty good to me but there is one thing that is different than what I understood from discussions earlier this week. My understanding was that the CSC would consider the SLEs proposed by the SLE WG after it is formed, i.e., after the transition occurs and that the SLEs would hence be implemented after the transition. I note in your item 9) below: " SLE in place from the date of Transition ". Which is correct?
I personally like the idea of the SLEs being in place at transition, but if that is going to be the case I think there needs to be some check point(s) with the community including direct customers during the implementation process to ensure that the final SLEs are acceptable. I raised this issue in the CWG call on Tuesday and understood that those check points would not be needed before transition because the CSC would be dealing with this after transition.
I don't think resolution of this is needed now but it certainly is needed before the implementation process is started.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:08 AM To: dt1@icann.org Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Dear all
I am pleased to advise we are making good progress now... and in light of the winding down of the CWG - to ensure our work is empowered to continue as discussd last week, may I propose that we rename DT-A - the SLE Ad-hoc Working Group (SLE WG).
1) The CWG has the work of the SLE Design Team as a Community initiative in the proposal - I ask that Design Team will be renamed to SLE Ad-Hoc Working Group (SLE WG). 2) IANA and Adam (my guy) are going to refine the SLE and then present that to the WG for adoption (approx 4 weeks to finish). 3) Once agreed, IANA will develop an Implementation plan (2 weeks) including an internal ICANN request for Technical Resources. 4) The Implementation plan needs NTIA approval (Kim and I will work with NTIA to secure approval) - 2 weeks. 5) Once NTIA has approved, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed.- 1 month 6) IANA will then for 2 to 3 months run a trial capturing real world transaction information and provide that to the WG 7) With real world data (that IANA is comfortable with) - we will populate the agreed thresholds for the SLE. 8) With the SLE data specified (Jan/Feb 2016), the SLE will be in place and ready for the Implementation Phase.Checking of the SLE during the Implementation Phase 9) SLE in place from the date of Transition !
Hope this is helpful
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ 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 do not understand your first question: proceed with what in our proposal? The proposal doesn’t contain any SLEs. I am not a member of DT-A so I provided my input via the CWG list and through direct communications with DT-A participants. In Istanbul, I participated in the discussions of the full group regarding DT-A work and also had some one-to-one conversations with Paul. Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:06 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Paul M Kane - CWG; David Conrad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; dt1@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward..... Hi Chuck, If you think there are some that would indeed affect verisign then why did we have to still proceed with it in our proposal. Secondly when you say "you have discussed with Paul" I hope you meant you formerly flagged this within the DT. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 11 Jun 2015 21:59, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: David, I am only responding to your question about the Root Zone Maintainer involvement. I have been monitoring the progress of the SLEs and have been involving our lead person in that regard. So far there are only a few SLEs that would impact the Maintainer roll. I communicated to Paul that some of the listed thresholds might impact the process that Verisign uses, which is very comprehensive. We will look at those again once they progress further and we definitely will cooperate however needed in this regard. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@icann.org<mailto:david.conrad@icann.org>] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:50 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Paul M Kane - CWG Cc: dt1@icann.org<mailto:dt1@icann.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward..... Hi, As the person tagged with the responsibility for overseeing ICANN's development of the code associated with implementing the SLEs (among other things), I'd just like to point out that the implementation of this hasn't really been discussed, either internally within the development team or with NTIA (at least by ICANN). We've discussed the SLEs for IANA's component of Root Zone Management on a very interim level within the IANA team, and the development team leader has been involved in discussions relating to some of the metrics we'll likely want to start capturing, but that is the extent of it so far. It may also be worth pointing out that other operational communities are working on SL{A,E}s that will impact implementation schedules. I'm also a bit curious: since implementation of root zone changes involves more than ICANN, has the Root Zone Maintainer been involved in the development of these SLEs and been equally committed by others to the implementation plan described below? I had thought the plan was to maintain the existing SLAs as defined by NTIA and the IETF until after the transition and then to evolve those SLAs to meet the community (not just the names community) requirements. Was I mistaken? I'd note that Paul's estimate of how long the implementation of the names SLEs will take for this single recommendation may help inform the CWG in forming its full implementation timeline which is due to ICG. Thanks, -drc -----Original Message----- From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:07 AM To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>> Cc: "dt1@icann.org<mailto:dt1@icann.org>" <dt1@icann.org<mailto:dt1@icann.org>>, CWG Mailing List <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Thanks Paul. Let me make sure I understand correctly.
1. In the next 4 weeks: DT-A & IANA will develop an SLE framework and obtain approval by the SLE WG. 2. In the following 2 weeks: IANA will develop an implementation plan. 3. In two weeks after that, you and Kim will seek NTIA approval to test and implement the plan. 4. In the next month, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed. 5. In 2-3 months after the ability to extract times, proposed SLEs will be tested by IANA in cooperation with the SLE WG. 6. The SLE is completed at this point. 7. In the Jan/Feb 2016 timeframe the implementation phase will begin. The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience. 8. The SLE will be in place at the time of transition. 9. Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
I tried to figure out where the two community check points fit into this but had trouble doing that.
What will the communication check points entail?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:46 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: dt1@icann.org<mailto:dt1@icann.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Thanks Chuck
Yes - the plan is that we have an SLE in place from the start of the transition, developed by IANA and SLE WG but ICANN/IANA need to be confident that the thresholds are reasonable and that there is a mechanism in place to review them after the transition - that the role of the CSC. That's the end goal but how to get there......?
In the next month or so the SLE framework should be completed (without thresholds being specified).
We need to ask NTIA for permission to run tests to help populate the SLE... which is a pre-implementation phase and community check point (1). The pre-implementation phase needs to be based on real-world testing and statistics gathering upon which the thresholds will be determined by IANA working with the SLE WG.
The SLE is then completed and before being finalized there will be a short period of community check point (2) for the purpose of checking that all issues have been addressed. The SLE will then be submitted along with the rest of the proposal to NTIA for review...and if approved progresses to the Implementation Phase.
The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience.
Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
Hope I've answered your questions.
best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>:
Paul,
Mostly this looks pretty good to me but there is one thing that is different than what I understood from discussions earlier this week. My understanding was that the CSC would consider the SLEs proposed by the SLE WG after it is formed, i.e., after the transition occurs and that the SLEs would hence be implemented after the transition. I note in your item 9) below: " SLE in place from the date of Transition ". Which is correct?
I personally like the idea of the SLEs being in place at transition, but if that is going to be the case I think there needs to be some check point(s) with the community including direct customers during the implementation process to ensure that the final SLEs are acceptable. I raised this issue in the CWG call on Tuesday and understood that those check points would not be needed before transition because the CSC would be dealing with this after transition.
I don't think resolution of this is needed now but it certainly is needed before the implementation process is started.
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: Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:08 AM To: dt1@icann.org<mailto:dt1@icann.org> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Dear all
I am pleased to advise we are making good progress now... and in light of the winding down of the CWG - to ensure our work is empowered to continue as discussd last week, may I propose that we rename DT-A - the SLE Ad-hoc Working Group (SLE WG).
1) The CWG has the work of the SLE Design Team as a Community initiative in the proposal - I ask that Design Team will be renamed to SLE Ad-Hoc Working Group (SLE WG). 2) IANA and Adam (my guy) are going to refine the SLE and then present that to the WG for adoption (approx 4 weeks to finish). 3) Once agreed, IANA will develop an Implementation plan (2 weeks) including an internal ICANN request for Technical Resources. 4) The Implementation plan needs NTIA approval (Kim and I will work with NTIA to secure approval) - 2 weeks. 5) Once NTIA has approved, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed.- 1 month 6) IANA will then for 2 to 3 months run a trial capturing real world transaction information and provide that to the WG 7) With real world data (that IANA is comfortable with) - we will populate the agreed thresholds for the SLE. 8) With the SLE data specified (Jan/Feb 2016), the SLE will be in place and ready for the Implementation Phase.Checking of the SLE during the Implementation Phase 9) SLE in place from the date of Transition !
Hope this is helpful
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Chuck, My point was that since you identified some items in DT-A that post some concern, would it not have been better not to include it in the SLE for now and rather go with what works at the moment. I am not really a fan of introducing new SLE requirement beyond what is already working in this transition process. Regards On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Seun,
I do not understand your first question: proceed with what in our proposal? The proposal doesn’t contain any SLEs.
I am not a member of DT-A so I provided my input via the CWG list and through direct communications with DT-A participants. In Istanbul, I participated in the discussions of the full group regarding DT-A work and also had some one-to-one conversations with Paul.
Chuck
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:06 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Paul M Kane - CWG; David Conrad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; dt1@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Hi Chuck,
If you think there are some that would indeed affect verisign then why did we have to still proceed with it in our proposal. Secondly when you say "you have discussed with Paul" I hope you meant you formerly flagged this within the DT.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 11 Jun 2015 21:59, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
David,
I am only responding to your question about the Root Zone Maintainer involvement. I have been monitoring the progress of the SLEs and have been involving our lead person in that regard. So far there are only a few SLEs that would impact the Maintainer roll. I communicated to Paul that some of the listed thresholds might impact the process that Verisign uses, which is very comprehensive. We will look at those again once they progress further and we definitely will cooperate however needed in this regard.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:50 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Paul M Kane - CWG Cc: dt1@icann.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Hi,
As the person tagged with the responsibility for overseeing ICANN's development of the code associated with implementing the SLEs (among other things), I'd just like to point out that the implementation of this hasn't really been discussed, either internally within the development team or with NTIA (at least by ICANN). We've discussed the SLEs for IANA's component of Root Zone Management on a very interim level within the IANA team, and the development team leader has been involved in discussions relating to some of the metrics we'll likely want to start capturing, but that is the extent of it so far. It may also be worth pointing out that other operational communities are working on SL{A,E}s that will impact implementation schedules.
I'm also a bit curious: since implementation of root zone changes involves more than ICANN, has the Root Zone Maintainer been involved in the development of these SLEs and been equally committed by others to the implementation plan described below?
I had thought the plan was to maintain the existing SLAs as defined by NTIA and the IETF until after the transition and then to evolve those SLAs to meet the community (not just the names community) requirements. Was I mistaken?
I'd note that Paul's estimate of how long the implementation of the names SLEs will take for this single recommendation may help inform the CWG in forming its full implementation timeline which is due to ICG.
Thanks, -drc
-----Original Message----- From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:07 AM To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Cc: "dt1@icann.org" <dt1@icann.org>, CWG Mailing List <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Thanks Paul. Let me make sure I understand correctly.
1. In the next 4 weeks: DT-A & IANA will develop an SLE framework and obtain approval by the SLE WG. 2. In the following 2 weeks: IANA will develop an implementation plan. 3. In two weeks after that, you and Kim will seek NTIA approval to test and implement the plan. 4. In the next month, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed. 5. In 2-3 months after the ability to extract times, proposed SLEs will be tested by IANA in cooperation with the SLE WG. 6. The SLE is completed at this point. 7. In the Jan/Feb 2016 timeframe the implementation phase will begin. The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience. 8. The SLE will be in place at the time of transition. 9. Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
I tried to figure out where the two community check points fit into this but had trouble doing that.
What will the communication check points entail?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:46 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: dt1@icann.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Thanks Chuck
Yes - the plan is that we have an SLE in place from the start of the transition, developed by IANA and SLE WG but ICANN/IANA need to be confident that the thresholds are reasonable and that there is a mechanism in place to review them after the transition - that the role of the CSC. That's the end goal but how to get there......?
In the next month or so the SLE framework should be completed (without thresholds being specified).
We need to ask NTIA for permission to run tests to help populate the SLE... which is a pre-implementation phase and community check point (1). The pre-implementation phase needs to be based on real-world testing and statistics gathering upon which the thresholds will be determined by IANA working with the SLE WG.
The SLE is then completed and before being finalized there will be a short period of community check point (2) for the purpose of checking that all issues have been addressed. The SLE will then be submitted along with the rest of the proposal to NTIA for review...and if approved progresses to the Implementation Phase.
The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience.
Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
Hope I've answered your questions.
best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Paul,
Mostly this looks pretty good to me but there is one thing that is different than what I understood from discussions earlier this week. My understanding was that the CSC would consider the SLEs proposed by the SLE WG after it is formed, i.e., after the transition occurs and that the SLEs would hence be implemented after the transition. I note in your item 9) below: " SLE in place from the date of Transition ". Which is correct?
I personally like the idea of the SLEs being in place at transition, but if that is going to be the case I think there needs to be some check point(s) with the community including direct customers during the implementation process to ensure that the final SLEs are acceptable. I raised this issue in the CWG call on Tuesday and understood that those check points would not be needed before transition because the CSC would be dealing with this after transition.
I don't think resolution of this is needed now but it certainly is needed before the implementation process is started.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:08 AM To: dt1@icann.org Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Dear all
I am pleased to advise we are making good progress now... and in light of the winding down of the CWG - to ensure our work is empowered to continue as discussd last week, may I propose that we rename DT-A - the SLE Ad-hoc Working Group (SLE WG).
1) The CWG has the work of the SLE Design Team as a Community initiative in the proposal - I ask that Design Team will be renamed to SLE Ad-Hoc Working Group (SLE WG). 2) IANA and Adam (my guy) are going to refine the SLE and then present that to the WG for adoption (approx 4 weeks to finish). 3) Once agreed, IANA will develop an Implementation plan (2 weeks) including an internal ICANN request for Technical Resources. 4) The Implementation plan needs NTIA approval (Kim and I will work with NTIA to secure approval) - 2 weeks. 5) Once NTIA has approved, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed.- 1 month 6) IANA will then for 2 to 3 months run a trial capturing real world transaction information and provide that to the WG 7) With real world data (that IANA is comfortable with) - we will populate the agreed thresholds for the SLE. 8) With the SLE data specified (Jan/Feb 2016), the SLE will be in place and ready for the Implementation Phase.Checking of the SLE during the Implementation Phase 9) SLE in place from the date of Transition !
Hope this is helpful
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ 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 Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
It seemed to make more sense to wait for a more fully vetted SLE. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Date:06/12/2015 10:57 AM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org>, cwg-stewardship@icann.org, dt1@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward..... Hi Chuck, My point was that since you identified some items in DT-A that post some concern, would it not have been better not to include it in the SLE for now and rather go with what works at the moment. I am not really a fan of introducing new SLE requirement beyond what is already working in this transition process. Regards On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Seun, I do not understand your first question: proceed with what in our proposal? The proposal doesn’t contain any SLEs. I am not a member of DT-A so I provided my input via the CWG list and through direct communications with DT-A participants. In Istanbul, I participated in the discussions of the full group regarding DT-A work and also had some one-to-one conversations with Paul. Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:06 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Paul M Kane - CWG; David Conrad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; dt1@icann.org<mailto:dt1@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward..... Hi Chuck, If you think there are some that would indeed affect verisign then why did we have to still proceed with it in our proposal. Secondly when you say "you have discussed with Paul" I hope you meant you formerly flagged this within the DT. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 11 Jun 2015 21:59, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: David, I am only responding to your question about the Root Zone Maintainer involvement. I have been monitoring the progress of the SLEs and have been involving our lead person in that regard. So far there are only a few SLEs that would impact the Maintainer roll. I communicated to Paul that some of the listed thresholds might impact the process that Verisign uses, which is very comprehensive. We will look at those again once they progress further and we definitely will cooperate however needed in this regard. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@icann.org<mailto:david.conrad@icann.org>] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:50 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Paul M Kane - CWG Cc: dt1@icann.org<mailto:dt1@icann.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward..... Hi, As the person tagged with the responsibility for overseeing ICANN's development of the code associated with implementing the SLEs (among other things), I'd just like to point out that the implementation of this hasn't really been discussed, either internally within the development team or with NTIA (at least by ICANN). We've discussed the SLEs for IANA's component of Root Zone Management on a very interim level within the IANA team, and the development team leader has been involved in discussions relating to some of the metrics we'll likely want to start capturing, but that is the extent of it so far. It may also be worth pointing out that other operational communities are working on SL{A,E}s that will impact implementation schedules. I'm also a bit curious: since implementation of root zone changes involves more than ICANN, has the Root Zone Maintainer been involved in the development of these SLEs and been equally committed by others to the implementation plan described below? I had thought the plan was to maintain the existing SLAs as defined by NTIA and the IETF until after the transition and then to evolve those SLAs to meet the community (not just the names community) requirements. Was I mistaken? I'd note that Paul's estimate of how long the implementation of the names SLEs will take for this single recommendation may help inform the CWG in forming its full implementation timeline which is due to ICG. Thanks, -drc -----Original Message----- From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:07 AM To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>> Cc: "dt1@icann.org<mailto:dt1@icann.org>" <dt1@icann.org<mailto:dt1@icann.org>>, CWG Mailing List <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Thanks Paul. Let me make sure I understand correctly.
1. In the next 4 weeks: DT-A & IANA will develop an SLE framework and obtain approval by the SLE WG. 2. In the following 2 weeks: IANA will develop an implementation plan. 3. In two weeks after that, you and Kim will seek NTIA approval to test and implement the plan. 4. In the next month, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed. 5. In 2-3 months after the ability to extract times, proposed SLEs will be tested by IANA in cooperation with the SLE WG. 6. The SLE is completed at this point. 7. In the Jan/Feb 2016 timeframe the implementation phase will begin. The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience. 8. The SLE will be in place at the time of transition. 9. Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
I tried to figure out where the two community check points fit into this but had trouble doing that.
What will the communication check points entail?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk>] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:46 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: dt1@icann.org<mailto:dt1@icann.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Thanks Chuck
Yes - the plan is that we have an SLE in place from the start of the transition, developed by IANA and SLE WG but ICANN/IANA need to be confident that the thresholds are reasonable and that there is a mechanism in place to review them after the transition - that the role of the CSC. That's the end goal but how to get there......?
In the next month or so the SLE framework should be completed (without thresholds being specified).
We need to ask NTIA for permission to run tests to help populate the SLE... which is a pre-implementation phase and community check point (1). The pre-implementation phase needs to be based on real-world testing and statistics gathering upon which the thresholds will be determined by IANA working with the SLE WG.
The SLE is then completed and before being finalized there will be a short period of community check point (2) for the purpose of checking that all issues have been addressed. The SLE will then be submitted along with the rest of the proposal to NTIA for review...and if approved progresses to the Implementation Phase.
The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world experience.
Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
Hope I've answered your questions.
best
Paul
Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>:
Paul,
Mostly this looks pretty good to me but there is one thing that is different than what I understood from discussions earlier this week. My understanding was that the CSC would consider the SLEs proposed by the SLE WG after it is formed, i.e., after the transition occurs and that the SLEs would hence be implemented after the transition. I note in your item 9) below: " SLE in place from the date of Transition ". Which is correct?
I personally like the idea of the SLEs being in place at transition, but if that is going to be the case I think there needs to be some check point(s) with the community including direct customers during the implementation process to ensure that the final SLEs are acceptable. I raised this issue in the CWG call on Tuesday and understood that those check points would not be needed before transition because the CSC would be dealing with this after transition.
I don't think resolution of this is needed now but it certainly is needed before the implementation process is started.
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: Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:08 AM To: dt1@icann.org<mailto:dt1@icann.org> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
Dear all
I am pleased to advise we are making good progress now... and in light of the winding down of the CWG - to ensure our work is empowered to continue as discussd last week, may I propose that we rename DT-A - the SLE Ad-hoc Working Group (SLE WG).
1) The CWG has the work of the SLE Design Team as a Community initiative in the proposal - I ask that Design Team will be renamed to SLE Ad-Hoc Working Group (SLE WG). 2) IANA and Adam (my guy) are going to refine the SLE and then present that to the WG for adoption (approx 4 weeks to finish). 3) Once agreed, IANA will develop an Implementation plan (2 weeks) including an internal ICANN request for Technical Resources. 4) The Implementation plan needs NTIA approval (Kim and I will work with NTIA to secure approval) - 2 weeks. 5) Once NTIA has approved, the resources to extract the times needed will be deployed.- 1 month 6) IANA will then for 2 to 3 months run a trial capturing real world transaction information and provide that to the WG 7) With real world data (that IANA is comfortable with) - we will populate the agreed thresholds for the SLE. 8) With the SLE data specified (Jan/Feb 2016), the SLE will be in place and ready for the Implementation Phase.Checking of the SLE during the Implementation Phase 9) SLE in place from the date of Transition !
Hope this is helpful
Best
Paul
_______________________________________________ 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
participants (11)
-
CW Lists -
David Conrad -
Donna Austin -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan Robinson -
Lise Fuhr -
Matthew Shears -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Paul M Kane - CWG -
Seun Ojedeji