[SLE Team] FW: Adobe Connect - Note Pod Content from CWG-IANA _

[Bart Boswinkel]

Rough Notes Call 27 Augsut

SLE Working Group Meeting 27 August 2015 @ 20:00 UTC


Agenda:

1.  Welcome and Roll Call.

2.  Acceptance of Agenda as presented

3.  Review of the PDF document

(any comments)

4.  Approval of the presented document by SLE Working Group members.

5.  Any other business.


Notes:

Welcome and Roll Call

Attendants as noted in list of participants

No attendees on audio only


Run through document on basis of page numbers



Agenda

No comments on agenda




Review of Document


Comments page 1: no commetn


Page 2: Comments

Background section paragraph 1: editorial issue

Bernie: Document will be re-read for editorial

Jay: not-comfortable after finalising. No tidy-up (unintended consequences.)




page 3: no comments


page 4: No


Page 5


Page 6


Page 7:

Jay: Much more then assumption, it is more a defintion

Move to SLE part

Question: where do you wnat in SLE part.

Right in the fornt as defintion section

Proposal, include refefence


Move section H to SLE part  or/in addtion link with Process section


Elise: Understand appears more as defintions, but where to put it?


Jeff N:

Point L is defintion as well  point H


Reference is also earlier in document, so maybe move H and L to definition section. Also include refernce to defintion section later in document to dfintion section



Page 8:

Elise: Comment J

Include total transtion in J as sentence , is out of place.


Bernie: LAst part was not approved by Kim. The only part that is not agreed to.


DAid Conrad: it is odd to have time in assumption section. Total transaction time is also

Confused, why an emergency change not treated as non-discrimatory manner?


Patricio: allow queue jumping.


Sugestion: Any specific number go to process performance section.


Jeffrey: Split the two sentences


Jay: Shoudl fair and non-discrimantory be replaced by first-come first serve.

Paul K : at last call discussed that this captures better pactice'

Agreed


Proposal split paragraph J

First sentence remains as J

Second sentence new section K and then renumber next sections.

Move final sentence to Porcess Performance Section.


Elise: Total Transaction time. may create confusion


Response: this should be total IANA Transtion Time

Document can only address IANA transctions


David C: supports splitting

Suggesting if only referring to queue jumping


Proposal:

Split Current J  into 3

AS above



Page 9-25: No comments


Page 26:

Jeff: Following a period of successful data collection using these new metrics, but in no event more than 6 months post-transition,  the community should reconvene to review the data collected along with other industry comparable and applicable data in order to formulate the actual service level expectations (i.e., the key metrics against which thresholds will be set, and against IANA will be required to adhere to in a post-transition environment)….



Words marked sugested changes by Jeff N



After the words new metrics, time commitment to get this done


Add text: with other industry ....applicable data


PAul K: Iana wil be preparing to capture timestamps as experiment, to detemine thresholds to populate tables


Goal: to have tested and proven SLE


Sometimes after the transition relate to industry standards


Elise: Question around in no event than 6 months post transtion, what does 6 months look at? what is intended to be done?


Jeff: in 6 months after transition you should have the dat, so have build the systems . 6 months is just strawman. In order to enable the group to discuss data and together with industry dta , discuss what SLE shoukd be.


David: For clarification,, what industry is meant ( not implied). Without scoping exercise, not comfortable committing to an arbitrary timeline


Jeff: As to industry, what is a good industry to compare to.

As to timeline, need to include realistic timeline, without timeline does not meet goal.


Bernie: relative to timeline, before committin gto timeline, scopinng is necessary an dcommunity was informed,. For scoping this document is requirement

CSC formally constituted group to agree SLE


Jay: nail down when data collection start, timeline Include comparison.  For transition


Paul K as registry: Once document is approved, allows scoping of work, seek necessary approvals, then start collecting of data (by the end of year) and after collecting data, deteing thresholds etc. After that CSC would take over, with period review

Next steps section was intended as placeholder.

Idea of broad timeline, and point of industry standard can be included, but latter of CSC.


Elise: concern that work needs to concerned, put in plan in place, and other plans need to be put in place, but commit to timeline up-front for complete process, without done homework, no servce.


Jeff N: ICANN required commitment under new gTLD agreement, despite same arguments


Jay: Sympathise with IANA argument, however we are soemtimes required to do it. We need create a situation whre responsibilities etc  can be handed over.


Bernie: It was expectation that IANA was collecting all data needed. Based on this SLE could be defined. However not the case. Timing contraint a concern for CWG, co-chairs are very aware of time constraints. The CWG view is tha tmeasuring was measuring had to done, but that was done on prior approach. Now we have established what needs to be measured, the CWG should take on responsibility to connect the moving parts.


Jeff: Assumptions were IAAN was measuring. Piroritization shuld not only be done by IANA/ICANN and NTIA. Most groups want SLE in place.

CWG constituted group for their expertice


Paul K: intend is to have a refernce to a timeline that needs to be addressed by CWG, Expectation is that SLE should be in place when trantion occurs.


Being careful about being descriptive.

More important that SLE is in place at moment of transition


Bernie: It would be CWG and not ICANN/IANA, as proposed by Paul


Jay: The CWG only becomes only involved if not ready

This


Clarification: add langauge this WG,expects that SLE at in place at time/date of transition.

Avoid including timelines to achieve SLE,



Elise: Support not prescribing a timeline,  If proposed language implies it allows scoping of work, it is okay


The community needs to have an operational  SLE in place ( data collected, thersholds determiend etc.


Porposal:

DO a highlevel timeline in place

Reference industry standard


Agreed


Is document including suggested changes as discussed.


Jay, Jeff A, Elaine, Jeff N , Patricio, Paul K (n all members SLEWG


Elise: agree to document


Next steps: Final version in 12 hours to group for formal approval, then send to CWG and  ICG


21.17 Clousre of call






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt1/attachments/20150827/ca41f840/attachment-0001.html>