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

[Alan Greenberg]

Chuck (and all),

As you know, I do not work for a registry and have no financial 
interest in any of this. But I *DO* have a very strong interest in 
having IANA do a superlative job.

As long as the SLEs we are asking for are reasonable, and by that I 
mean are in line with what they are actually doing over the last 
several years, with a reasonable cushion to address future unexpected 
situations), and with the provision of some requests being on the 
longer tail of the timing curve (since there will always be a variety 
of special circumstances), then I think you can expect widespread 
support from the community.

Lesser commitments significantly below this without a rationale that 
is acceptable (and better than we simply want to cover our rears) are 
going to be a hard sell!

Alan

At 09/05/2015 09:51 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>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
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship