[CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.

[Andrew Sullivan]

Why is it no longer "fit for purpose"?  What possible reason is there to change the SLA, except for the party to which the assurance is offered?  We have a running system, and we should change as little as possible as part of the transition: this is just prudent engineering.  

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan 
Please excuse my clumbsy thums. 

> On May 9, 2015, at 10:19, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Milton
> 
> I sincerely hope that ICANN legal are NOT interfering with how IANA staff
> deliver technical services to the community. 
> 
> What DT-A has done is capture the current performance delivered by IANA as the
> baseline for any post transition SLE - see the a draft SLE document under
> discussion attached......  
> 
> Currently IANA delivers to the community Name Server updates, DS Record updates,
> WHOIS updates well within a week - and this includes having NTIA in the loop -
> so having an SLA that stipulates 21days for such tasks is clearly no longer fit
> for purpose.
> 
> Attached is the statistical analysis of current performance based on IANA's data
> presented to the CWG in March
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/DT-A_Statistical-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426003475000&api=v2
> 
> I genuinely believe IANA staff are trying to provide the information (true IANA
> needs to invest in monitoring the performance of their RZM systems - but that is
> trivial, two days of a competent programmers time would provide IANA and the
> community with the required matrices).
> 
> It would be a great shame for ICANN legal to prevent the IANA service which is
> delivered to the community today from being accurately captured by the SLE
> Group.... time will tell... and I am optimistic we will receive constructive input.
> 
> Best
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
> 
>> Better read the letter carefully, Paul
>> It is pure 100% distilled essence of ICANN legal. 
>> As I read the letter, they have not given you anything that is not already
>> published on the web. 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
>>> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG
>>> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 2:50 PM
>>> To: Grace Abuhamad
>>> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with
>>> clarifying background info.
>>> 
>>> Grace,
>>> 
>>> Many thanks for helping DT-A obtain the current detailed IANA work
>>> flow information....
>>> 
>>> Have a great w/end
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> 
>>> Paul
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Forwarded message from Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-
>>> cwg at icb.co.uk> -----
>>>    Date: Fri,  8 May 2015 19:42:18 +0100
>>>    From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk>
>>> Reply-To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk>
>>> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.
>>>      To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>
>>> 
>>> Thanks Elise
>>> 
>>> I confirm receipt of the response from ICANN Legal following our DIDP
>>> request.
>>> 
>>> On or after the 12th May 2015, we look forward to receiving the
>>> current detailed IANA process workflow documents (with comments
>>> as to why any "sensitive"
>>> information has been redacted) so we can work cooperatively with
>>> you to create a professional Service Level Expectation (SLE) document
>>> for the benefit of the whole community.
>>> 
>>> Have a great w/end
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> 
>>> Paul
> 
> <CWG-DRAFT-SLE-DTA.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship