Budget item -- business continuity plan
Folks, I'm surprised to hear a BCP is in-budget. First, the necessity has never existed for the IANA, and whatever "business" ICANN conducts that isn't as important as IANA continuity, doesn't need to be in-budget in this budget cycle. Second, the utility of a BCP for ICANN business continuity is not compelling, after continuity of the IANA function is removed. Third, if one is serious about a BCP, we should get the best ROI that we can, and if the MdR facility is "lost", the stand-by site that starts up from archival media could be in a much lower cost venue than MdR. Eric
Folks, In the first 30 minutes of the call Kurt called attention to the impact of the business continuity plan had on the budget -- hardware, software and so foth. That set off alarm bells for me. In the {info|biz|name|coop|museum|aero|pro} bidding cycle, ICANN's staff (chiefly Louie) wrote technical expectations into the registry pro forma that were very, very expensive to the winning bidders. In the .org rebid this was repeated. In the current round this is still the case, though the experience with .museum (and quite a few ccTLDs) makes it obvious that a registry can function on a shoe-string. I'm concerned first that ICANN's BCP isn't costed as a line item, that it has been bundled into a bunch of cost centers. To paraphrase Kurt, it is "wicked big, but we don't know how big it is." I'm concerned second that ICANN's gold-plate-with-other-people's-money culture is may be present in this, as it has been over the past four years of registry technical requirements. I imagine that ICANN's BCP should resemble the BCP for any business of a similar size -- get 50 seats operational within some few days, with all 24/7 function (servers) alredy colo'd and replicated as part of a seperate 24/7 operational plan. Does anyone see ICANN as something more complex and recovery time-critical than some lawyers, accountants, sales reps, and a bunch of admins? I don't, so if I'm missing something, please let me know. The expense of the BCP should have, no MUST HAVE, a rational relation to the value of the expected down-time. The IETF is responsible for the IANA function, and I'm writing the current Chair (Haral Alvestrand) to determin if there is a BCP requirement in the contract or side-agreements to manage the IANA function, and if so, the details of the(se) contractual requirement(s), if any. For those of you on yesterday's call, Kurt's musing that the cost of the BCP includes replication of the L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET and the IANA compters is not credible, which is why I cut him off when he started running down an litany of high-profile items. The cost of this activity must be known, and the necessity and utility issues considered in the full light of day. Eric
Folks, FYI. The IETF Chair replies to the question of business continity and the MOU between IETF and ICANN concerning the IANA function. Eric ------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: harald@alvestrand.no Delivery-Date: Thu May 27 04:27:03 2004 Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no> Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4R4R2Op002952 for <brunner@nic-naa.net>; Thu, 27 May 2004 04:27:03 GMT (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB84621D2; Thu, 27 May 2004 06:26:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00334-10; Thu, 27 May 2004 06:26:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from halvestr-w2k02.emea.cisco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A8A61BE3; Thu, 27 May 2004 06:26:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 21:09:29 -0700 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> To: Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net> Cc: leslie@thinkingcat.com Subject: Re: You were cc'd on a letter to the registrars@dnso.org list Message-ID: <129634774.1085605769@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200405261715.i4QHFmk8000713@nic-naa.net> References: <200405261715.i4QHFmk8000713@nic-naa.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no thanks - the MOU between IETF and ICANN concerning IANA does not mention business continuation functions. I'm CCing the IAB chair for info. Harald - --On 26. mai 2004 17:15 +0000 Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net> wrote:
Harald,
The letter contains a query concerning the IANA function. If you choose to reply you may reply to me and I will forward it to that list.
Eric
------- End of Forwarded Message
Well, I made the experience that ICANN does not answer to emails. Respectfully Siegfried Langenbach Computer Service Langenbach GmbH (CSL GmbH) GERMANY On 30 Jun 2004 at 10:29, Robert F. Connelly wrote: To: Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net> From: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com> Subject: Re: [registrars] Budget item -- business continuity plan
At 09:56 AM 5/26/2004, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: In the first 30 minutes of the call Kurt called attention to the impact of the business continuity plan had on the budget -- hardware, software and so forth.
Dear Eric: I just called ICANN twice, let it ring a baker's dozen (13) times, no answer.
Has anyone noticed any problems due to this loss of activity;-}
Regards, BobC
participants (3)
-
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Robert F. Connelly -
Siegfried Langenbach