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

Sat May 9 12:02:39 UTC 2015

Hi James,

I guess the point is that  improvement on performance should be an ongoing
thing. Transition IMO should enable the ability to that and once that is
possible then I am okay. I don't think this transition should be too
focused performance review/improvement

Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 9 May 2015 12:07, "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

> Without reference to this specific situation as I am not familiar enough I
> would tend to somewhat disagree that its prudent engineering to maintain
> the status quo.
> Continuous improvement is a key part of any well run and functioning
> engineering system. If there is a possibility to improve a system or a
> process, and the risks have been quantified and assessed, then it is
> prudent to do so in many cases.
> In this case we seem to have a system which is run well enough that it is
> outperforming its current requirements, so unless there is a definite risk
> to the system I don't see why it's not a good time to examine this. If
> anything it's a credit to the IANA and its running to be able to consider
> tightening the operating parameters and tolerances of the system.
>
> As an analogy if you're running a datacenter and have data to show you're
> providing five nines of availability (99.999%) you generally wouldn't
> continue to only offer a 3 nines SLA (99.9%. Instead you'll show the
> progress and stability you've increased by, and you'll offer 4 nines
> (99.99%) to your customers.
>
> -James Gannon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 11:44 AM
> To: Paul M Kane - CWG
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with
> clarifying background info.
>
> 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_Statist
> > ical-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
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150509/e4213df8/attachment.html>