<html>
<body>
Sorry, Jordan and anyone else I may have offended or put off. The word
was poorly chosen. I certainly agree that no one should settle for less
than they have today, and I have no problem with further clarity. I do
have a problem with requirement which would force internal changes within
IANA at the same time as the transition is going on. That violates the
rule of making as few changes as possible in parallel.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 01/03/2015 03:59 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Alan, all:<br><br>
Since operational communities want a workable solution, calls of
'hostage' are probably wide of the mark and to be honest don't help the
conversation flow. They could indeed unkindly be described as a tactic
designed to stifle debate. I can't see that being your intention here,
but it could be the effect of your words.<br><br>
We, IANA customers, need this system to work because our work in turn
depends on it. The names community should be entitled to at least as good
an outcome from the post-transition settlement as today's settlement
offers, but that baseline is no reason not to pitch for greater clarity
and certainty when we can.<br><br>
I've had some private correspondence suggesting there are some real
issues that mean my simple distinction & view isn't necessarily
workable. There may be substantive SLA improvements compared with status
quo that are needed. I don't know yet. If there are, I'm happy to change
my mind and argue they should be done as part of the transition.<br><br>
Given the CWG has spent quite some time on a wide range of issues that
are of less importance than this, I'm sure some time spent assuring
operational quality won't be wasted.<br><br>
Will try and write more later today.<br><br>
Jordan <br><br>
On Monday, 2 March 2015, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>This worries me.<br><br>
<dd>How do we define "needs"? It sounds perilously close to
that community holding the transition hostage for something that they
want. <br><br>
<dd>Alan<br><br>
<dd>At 01/03/2015 02:17 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>I've thought of a b/c mid point complication: <br><br>
<dd>It is: whether anything needs to be added to currently documented SLA
standards to allow the transition to be acceptable to any key customer
community.<br><br>
<dd>That's not a wholesale review but it's a little more than b), while
respecting the need for conservatism and efficiency....<br><br>
<dd>Jordan <br><br>
<dd>On Sunday, 1 March 2015, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com >
wrote:
<dl>
<dd>+1 to Jordan's specific suggestion as well; considering that
everything works just fine right now is an indication that repeating the
current SLA would at least maintain status quo.<br>
<dd>Will be good if that methodology is applied to other design teams as
much as possible.
<dd>The goal is to build a stronger ICANN and so long as we have a
multistakeholder means/process to do that, then our job is done.<br>
<dd>Cheers!<br>
<dd>sent from Google nexus 4
<dd>kindly excuse brevity and typos.
<dd>On 1 Mar 2015 01:46, "Chris Disspain"
<ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>You read me right, man ;-)<br>
<br>
<br>
<dd>Cheers,<br>
<br>
<dd>Chris<br>
<dd>On 1 Mar 2015, at 11:35 , Jordan Carter
<jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Hi all,<br>
<dd>I think Chris's proposal makes sense too in logically
separating:<br>
<dd>a) porting across existing service level obligations to the
post-transition environment;
<dd>b) creating the possibility of reviewing and changing them in future;
and
<dd>c) reviewing and updating the substantive content<br>
<dd>If I read him right a) and b) should be done, but c) should not.
<br>
<dd>That might trim the work this design team needs to do and make
finalising the names community proposal easier...<br>
<dd>cheers
<dd>Jordan<br>
<dd>On 1 March 2015 at 08:56, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>Hi,<br>
<dd>Makes sense to me.<br><br>
<dd>avri<br>
<dd>On 28-Feb-15 18:43, Chris Disspain
wrote:<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>On that basis I wonder whether we would not be better served by
accepting the current status quo and building a mechanism for review and
negotiated changes to those service levels that could be employed
immediately after transition and on an ongoing basis. <br>
<dd>Thoughts?</blockquote></blockquote><br>
<br><br>
<hr>
</dl>
<dd>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<dd><a href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a> <br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<dd>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
<dd><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br><br>
</dl>
</dl><br><br>
<br>
<dd>-- <br>
<dd>Jordan Carter<br><br>
<dd>Chief Executive <br>
<dd>InternetNZ<br><br>
<dd>04 495 2118 (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649">+64 21
442 649</a> (mob)<br>
<dd>jordan@internetnz.net.nz <br>
<dd>Skype: jordancarter<br><br>
<dd>A better world through a better Internet <br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<dd>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<br>
<dd><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote><br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<dd>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<br>
<dd><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br><br>
<br><br>
<dd>-- <br>
<dd>Jordan Carter<br>
<dd>Chief Executive, InternetNZ<br><br>
<dd>+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<br><br>
<dd>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<dd>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<br>
<dd><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br><br>
</dl><br><br>
-- <br>
Jordan Carter<br>
Chief Executive, InternetNZ<br><br>
+64-21-442-649 |
<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><br>
<br>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity</blockquote></body>
</html>