[CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-staff_acct] Consensus Call for sending Rev 1.5 to the full meeting for a first reading.

[avri doria]

Hi,

Yes, contracted parties is being used in the sense, common in GNSO - but
perhaps not as much elsewhere, as a referent to gTLD contracted
Registries and Registrars.

So if I understand your question correctly: yes.

Thanks for the question
avri


On 02-Oct-17 03:49, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Thanks Avri.
>
> I have a question on Service Level Guidelines/Agreement described in
> Staff Accountability Report as below:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPoYa8/edit
>
>
>> ICANN Organization should work with the community to:
>> Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the Service
>> Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that clearly define
>> all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties and the service
>> level target for each service. 
>
>
> I would like to double check the scope of this service level
> guidelines for "all services provided by ICANN to contracted parties
> and the service level target for each service".
>
> Would "contracted parties" here only include contracted parties of
> domain name services provided by ICANN?
>
>
> Izumi
>
>
> On 2017/09/19 21:08, avri doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Attached is version 1.6 of the Staff Accountability report. It is being
>> submitted for a first reading in the full WS2 meeting.  This will be the
>> group's second attempt to do so.  We have, since the first failed
>> reading, discussed the issues that came out from that reading and have
>> made extensive changes to the recommendations and their wording.
>>
>> The report has received consensus from the subgroup in all aspects but
>> one. Due to the limited number of people participating in out last
>> meetings we felt that we could not resolve that issue without a wider
>> conversation.
>>
>> Currently recommendation 4a reads:
>>
>>      ICANN Organization should work with the community to:
>>
>>        a.Develop and publish service level guidelines (similar to the
>>          Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services) that
>>          clearly define all services provided by ICANN to contracted
>>          parties and the service level target for each service.
>>
>>
>> The recommendation in our previous attempt at a first reading in the
>> full group had been for a service level agreements (SLA). As there had
>> been strong reaction on SLAs because of their legal nature and the
>> difficulty involved in negotiating such SLAs, the recommendation was
>> changed to guidelines. In response, there was consensus in the subgroup,
>> though not unanimity, for recommending guidelines instead of agreements.
>>
>> During the subgroup consensus call, there was a request that we wait
>> until there had been time for more comment from the Contracted Parties
>> House of the GNSO, on whose behalf the original recommendation had been
>> made. It was argued that guidelines were an unreliable mechanism and
>> that it would be better to develop SLAs.
>>
>> Because of the tight schedule and the intermittent nature of sub-team
>> member attendance, it was recommended by others that we send the
>> subgroup consensus document as is on to the full meeting leaving the
>> issue of 4a open for discussion in the full meeting. An online consensus
>> call supported this recommendation.
>>
>> The document can be found in
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPoYa8/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>> (pdf attached)
>>
>>
>> thank you
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>