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

Jay Daley jay at nzrs.net.nz
Thu Aug 27 22:52:50 UTC 2015


Thanks for all of your work on this Bart.

Jay

> On 28/08/2015, at 9:27 am, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dt1 mailing list
> dt1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt1


-- 
Jay Daley
Chief Executive
NZRS Ltd
desk: +64 4 931 6977
mobile: +64 21 678840
linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley



More information about the dt1 mailing list