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

[Gomes, Chuck]

Well said James.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 7:06 AM
To: Andrew Sullivan; Paul M Kane - CWG
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.

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