Dear Nigel,

Thank you for your comment.

Going over the proposed language again to understand your point, I think it can be resolved fairly easily:

Satisfactory- PTI’s performance over [MONTH] was [insert %]. PTI met [insert number] of the currently defined [INSERT TOTAL NUMBER] thresholds.  Missing the threshold(s) [INSERT NAME OF THRESHOLD(S)] was satisfactorily explained and not an indication of a performance issue. [ADDITIONAL NOTE, Explanation]. The current list of thresholds is included in PTI’s performance report.

 

 

Applying it to the April 2018 findings:

PTI’s Perfomance over April 2018 was 95,2%. PTI met 62 of the current defined 65 thresholds. Missing the thresholds i. Technical Check, ii. Technical Check (Supplemental) and iii  Validation and Reviews (ccTLD Creation/Transfer) was satisfactorily explained and not an indication of a performance issue. 

 

The first two missed service levels are subject to a CSC recommendation that would re-categorize this month’s performance for these metrics as ‘met’. The third metric would require a year’s worth of data under the recommended change, which is not yet available. On the evidence so far, the CSC does not regard this as a cause for concern. Please refer to the Exceptions and Narrative for Reporting Period section of the March 2018 PTI performance report for a more detailed explanation of the missed SLAs.

The current list of thresholds is included in PTI’s Performance report.

 

 

Original April 2018 Findings

Satisfactory- PTI met the service level agreement at 95.3% for the month of March 2018. Missed service level agreements that were satisfactorily explained and not an indication of a performance issue:

  1. a)  Technical Check (Retest)
  2. b)  Technical Check (Supplemental)
  3. c)  Validation and Reviews (ccTLD Creation/Transfer)

The first two missed service levels are subject to a CSC recommendation that would re-categorize this month’s performance for these metrics as ‘met’. The third metric would require a year’s worth of data under the recommended change, which is not yet available.

On the evidence so far, the CSC does not regard this as a cause for concern.

Please refer to the Exceptions and Narrative for Reporting Period section of the March 2018 PTI performance report for a more detailed explanation of the missed SLAs.

 

Kind regards,

Bart

 

From: Nigel Cassimire <Nigel.Cassimire@ctu.int>
Date: Monday, 11 May 2020 at 22:02
To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>, "ICANN-CSC@icann.org" <icann-csc@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] RE: Proposed standard language qualification PTI Performance

 

Dear Bart,

 

Thanks for this. I’m generally satisfied with the proposed standardised language which I think is superior to the existing. I have one nagging doubt though as regards the “Satisfactory” text which does not seem to anticipate or cater for more than one missed threshold. I know it’s been since April 2018 that we have had more than one but maybe the standardised language could still cater for this possibility. What about trying the April 2018 report as an example?

 

 

Nigel Cassimire | Telecommunications Specialist

[ctu.int]

 

Caribbean

Telecommunications

Union

[facebook.com] [twitter.com] [youtube.com]

4 Mary Street, St. Clair | Port of Spain | Trinidad and Tobago

Tel: (+1 868) 628-0281 ext. 235 | Fax: (+1 868) 622-6523 Website: http://ctu.int [ctu.int]

 

 

From: ICANN-CSC [mailto:icann-csc-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:06 PM
To: ICANN-CSC@icann.org
Subject: [ICANN-CSC] Proposed standard language qualification PTI Performance

 

Proposed Update CSC Findings Qualifications “Excellent” and “Satisfactory”

In 2016 the CSC and PTI agreed on standardized language to qualify the performance of PTI. Recently the CSC requested to clarify the qualification of PTI’s performance. The CSC and PTI recently agreed to additionally include a reference in PTI’s monthly report to the number of Thresholds/SLAs PTI has met out of total number of Thresholds/SLA.  At its April meeting the CSC agreed to include a reference in their monthly Findings of PTIs Performance and change the standard language to that effect. Going forward, starting in May 2020 following generic language is proposed to designate the findings of the CSC of PTI’s performance. The changes are marked and the Original language is included  below

 

 

 

Original Language

 

 

Applying the proposed qualification Using the proposed language in recent CSC Findings report, they would:

 

 

Examples of Recent qualifications in CSC Findings of PTI Performance

 

Validation and Reviews (ccTLD Creation/Transfer): This missed service level is subject to a CSC recommendation to introduce new measurements to create a more meaningful performace measurement for this process.