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

[Gomes, Chuck]

Andrew,

You clearly have a lot more confidence than I do that it will be possible to implement tighter SLEs after the transition.  My pessimism is based on 15 years of  experience with gTLD registry contracts in which ICANN readily agreed to SLAs for registries but resisted strongly to SLAs that impacted them and only more recently have they started to give some on that.  Hopefully new accountability mechanisms will change that in the future, but until it happens, I will be doubtful.

Chuck 

-----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 5:37 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.

On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 01:15:05PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Andrew,
> 
> I would agree with you if DT-A was proposing changes to the running operational system, but they are not.

Yes, they are.  The operational system includes comparisons by an observer of conformance to service levels.  If you change the service levels at the same time as the transition, then I can't just look at the pre- and post-transition system and see, "Yep, they exceeded this every month by 25% both before and after," and so on.  It's of course possible to normalise for that, but it's a completely irrelevant change to the transition and, in my opinion, is therefore the sort of change that we ought not to be making now.

> We are not talking about changing running code but rather changing customer service expectations to align them with what the IANA team has been delivering for some time.

In other words, "We're changing a part of the overall system that is not directly related to the transition because we can."

> Besides, good engineering should be focused on delivering the best possible service to meeting customer needs.
> 

_One_ of the ways one does that is by evolutionary changes rolled out one at a time.  At least from my point of view, it doesn't seem that Verisign would be in a hurry to make many changes at the same time, particularly when some of the changes have deadlines imposed by unpredictable external influences (which is why Verisign has the tremendous history of reliability to point to).  I should expect us all to want the same prudence be used in this case.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship