<p dir="ltr">Hi James,</p>
<p dir="ltr">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</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!<br>
sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 9 May 2015 12:07, "James Gannon" <<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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.<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
-James Gannon<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan<br>
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 11:44 AM<br>
To: Paul M Kane - CWG<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
A<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
Please excuse my clumbsy thums.<br>
<br>
> On May 9, 2015, at 10:19, Paul M Kane - CWG <<a href="mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk">paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Thanks Milton<br>
><br>
> I sincerely hope that ICANN legal are NOT interfering with how IANA<br>
> staff deliver technical services to the community.<br>
><br>
> What DT-A has done is capture the current performance delivered by<br>
> IANA as the baseline for any post transition SLE - see the a draft SLE<br>
> document under discussion attached......<br>
><br>
> Currently IANA delivers to the community Name Server updates, DS<br>
> Record updates, WHOIS updates well within a week - and this includes<br>
> having NTIA in the loop - so having an SLA that stipulates 21days for<br>
> such tasks is clearly no longer fit for purpose.<br>
><br>
> Attached is the statistical analysis of current performance based on<br>
> IANA's data presented to the CWG in March<br>
> <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/DT-A_Statist" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/DT-A_Statist</a><br>
> ical-Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426003475000&api=v2<br>
><br>
> I genuinely believe IANA staff are trying to provide the information<br>
> (true IANA needs to invest in monitoring the performance of their RZM<br>
> systems - but that is trivial, two days of a competent programmers<br>
> time would provide IANA and the community with the required matrices).<br>
><br>
> It would be a great shame for ICANN legal to prevent the IANA service<br>
> which is delivered to the community today from being accurately<br>
> captured by the SLE Group.... time will tell... and I am optimistic we will receive constructive input.<br>
><br>
> Best<br>
><br>
> Paul<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Quoting Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>>:<br>
><br>
>> Better read the letter carefully, Paul It is pure 100% distilled<br>
>> essence of ICANN legal.<br>
>> As I read the letter, they have not given you anything that is not<br>
>> already published on the web.<br>
>><br>
>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>> From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-">cwg-stewardship-</a><br>
>>> <a href="mailto:bounces@icann.org">bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG<br>
>>> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 2:50 PM<br>
>>> To: Grace Abuhamad<br>
>>> Cc: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with<br>
>>> clarifying background info.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Grace,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Many thanks for helping DT-A obtain the current detailed IANA work<br>
>>> flow information....<br>
>>><br>
>>> Have a great w/end<br>
>>><br>
>>> Best<br>
>>><br>
>>> Paul<br>
>>><br>
>>> Begin forwarded message:<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> ----- Forwarded message from Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:cwg@icb.co.uk">cwg@icb.co.uk</a>> -----<br>
>>> Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 19:42:18 +0100<br>
>>> From: Paul M Kane - CWG <<a href="mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk">paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk</a>><br>
>>> Reply-To: Paul M Kane - CWG <<a href="mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk">paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk</a>><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.<br>
>>> To: Elise Gerich <<a href="mailto:elise.gerich@icann.org">elise.gerich@icann.org</a>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks Elise<br>
>>><br>
>>> I confirm receipt of the response from ICANN Legal following our<br>
>>> DIDP request.<br>
>>><br>
>>> On or after the 12th May 2015, we look forward to receiving the<br>
>>> current detailed IANA process workflow documents (with comments as<br>
>>> to why any "sensitive"<br>
>>> information has been redacted) so we can work cooperatively with you<br>
>>> to create a professional Service Level Expectation (SLE) document<br>
>>> for the benefit of the whole community.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Have a great w/end<br>
>>><br>
>>> Best<br>
>>><br>
>>> Paul<br>
><br>
> <CWG-DRAFT-SLE-DTA.pdf><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</blockquote></div>