All, Attached is a draft May CSC report for review and discussion. The draft is a redline against the April CSC report. Regards, Amy Creamer Director of Operations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: amy.creamer@iana.org<mailto:amy.creamer@iana.org> Phone: +1-424-537-8917
Hi Amy, Thanks for generating this draft report. However, I suggest that we limit the text to "The missed service level agreement was satisfactorily explained and not an indication of a persistent issue." In my view, the CSC shall investigate and report on issues from an "overview" perspective. We look for systemic problems, not specific issues with specific customers. Therefore our reports ought not to delve into the details and specifics of single missed SLAs. This missed SLA was satisfactorily explained in the PTI report, and that's good enough. Anyone with interest in the details can easily find them in the equally public report from the PTI. Copying the details into our report makes a total non-event stand out like something that warrants attention from the reader, which I think is not the case. What do you all think? Am I on the right track here? Cheers, /Liman icann-csc@icann.org 2021-06-15 02:44 [+0000]:
All,
Attached is a draft May CSC report for review and discussion. The draft is a redline against the April CSC report.
Regards,
Amy Creamer Director of Operations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: amy.creamer@iana.org<mailto:amy.creamer@iana.org> Phone: +1-424-537-8917
Hi Liman, You are on the right track. I pulled the copy out of the PTI report so the CSC could discuss it, as Brett had already asked some questions. But it wasn't well thought out on my behalf, and you are correct about systemic problems vs. individual ticket issues. I've removed the text so the CSC can determine what they want to say. Regards, Amy Creamer Director of Operations 1-424-537-8917 On 6/15/21, 05:08, "Lars-Johan Liman" <liman@netnod.se> wrote: Hi Amy, Thanks for generating this draft report. However, I suggest that we limit the text to "The missed service level agreement was satisfactorily explained and not an indication of a persistent issue." In my view, the CSC shall investigate and report on issues from an "overview" perspective. We look for systemic problems, not specific issues with specific customers. Therefore our reports ought not to delve into the details and specifics of single missed SLAs. This missed SLA was satisfactorily explained in the PTI report, and that's good enough. Anyone with interest in the details can easily find them in the equally public report from the PTI. Copying the details into our report makes a total non-event stand out like something that warrants attention from the reader, which I think is not the case. What do you all think? Am I on the right track here? Cheers, /Liman icann-csc@icann.org 2021-06-15 02:44 [+0000]: > All, > Attached is a draft May CSC report for review and discussion. The > draft is a redline against the April CSC report. > Regards, > Amy Creamer > Director of Operations > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > Email: amy.creamer@iana.org<mailto:amy.creamer@iana.org> > Phone: +1-424-537-8917
Dear Amy & Liman I agree on keeping the report on an "overview" perspective. We could alarm people unintentionally 😅 Best regards, Alejandra -- [image: Photograph] *Alejandra Reynoso*Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt *P:* +502 23688565 *E:* alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 10:35 AM Amy Creamer via ICANN-CSC < icann-csc@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Liman,
You are on the right track. I pulled the copy out of the PTI report so the CSC could discuss it, as Brett had already asked some questions. But it wasn't well thought out on my behalf, and you are correct about systemic problems vs. individual ticket issues.
I've removed the text so the CSC can determine what they want to say.
Regards, Amy Creamer Director of Operations 1-424-537-8917
On 6/15/21, 05:08, "Lars-Johan Liman" <liman@netnod.se> wrote:
Hi Amy,
Thanks for generating this draft report.
However, I suggest that we limit the text to "The missed service level agreement was satisfactorily explained and not an indication of a persistent issue."
In my view, the CSC shall investigate and report on issues from an "overview" perspective. We look for systemic problems, not specific issues with specific customers. Therefore our reports ought not to delve into the details and specifics of single missed SLAs. This missed SLA was satisfactorily explained in the PTI report, and that's good enough.
Anyone with interest in the details can easily find them in the equally public report from the PTI. Copying the details into our report makes a total non-event stand out like something that warrants attention from the reader, which I think is not the case.
What do you all think? Am I on the right track here?
Cheers, /Liman
icann-csc@icann.org 2021-06-15 02:44 [+0000]: > All,
> Attached is a draft May CSC report for review and discussion. The > draft is a redline against the April CSC report.
> Regards,
> Amy Creamer > Director of Operations > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > Email: amy.creamer@iana.org<mailto:amy.creamer@iana.org> > Phone: +1-424-537-8917
_______________________________________________ ICANN-CSC mailing list ICANN-CSC@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-csc
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (3)
-
Alejandra Reynoso -
Amy Creamer -
Lars-Johan Liman