[SLE Team] [CWG-Stewardship] Marc's presentation and report with some background

Lise Fuhr Fuhr at etno.eu
Tue Feb 23 22:32:48 UTC 2016

Hi DT,
This means if you believe you (DTA) need a meeting about the report please be explicit about this.

> On 23 Feb 2016, at 23:06, Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear members of the DT-A,
> The below email and attached information were recently circulated to the
> CWG mail list and we want to make sure that you have this information as
> well.
> This information provides background and results of the data parsing work
> that was recently completed.
> If you have any questions after reviewing this information, please let us
> know and we¹d be happy to provide a response.
> Please note that the next CWG call is scheduled for 1600 UTC on February
> 25. ICANN staff will be providing an update on the next phase of work: SLE
> metric collection and SLA setting. We encourage you to join the call and
> participate in that discussion.
> Thank you,
> Trang Nguyen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of David Conrad
> <david.conrad at icann.org>
> Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 8:48 AM
> To: CWG Mailing List <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Marc's presentation and report with
> some    background
>> Hi,
>> On the 76th CWG call on February 4th
>> (https://community.icann.org/x/nJBlAw), Marc Blanchet of Viagenie gave a
>> presentation on the work ICANN contracted them to perform that attempted
>> to derive approximations of the SLEs using the current RZMS and RT logs
>> and databases.  Attached is the PowerPoint deck that Marc used for his
>> presentation as well as the final report detailing his analyses. I am
>> circulating these reports for your review.
>> Based on the questions raised during the CWG call, it seems there might
>> have been some confusion around why that work was undertaken and how it
>> relates to the implementation of the SLEs. I am providing some background
>> here to help remove any confusion. My apologies in advance for the length
>> of this message, however I believe it important for there to be clarity
>> on this issue.
>> 1. Before the SLEs were developed, ICANN staff informed the DT-A that the
>> current RZMS and RT systems collect performance metrics as directed by
>> NTIA and our own internal requirements. The DT-A felt these metrics were
>> insufficient to ensure IANA performance met community requirements and
>> that new metrics would be necessary. ICANN staff informed the DT-A that
>> changes to performance metrics would require code changes to the RZMS.
>> 2. After the SLEs were developed, ICANN staff informed the CWG that due
>> to the number of simultaneous demands placed upon ICANN to safely
>> and securely modify systems and processes to meet transition
>> requirements, ICANN staff estimated the code changes to RZMS would be
>> completed by the end of March 2016. Some in the CWG suggested ICANN add
>> additional staff to the RZMS development team in an attempt to deploy the
>> code sooner. ICANN informed the CWG that doing so would more likely
>> result in development taking longer since any new developers would need
>> to become familiar with the existing code base and this familiarization
>> would necessarily involve interruptions to the existing development team,
>> delaying their efforts.
>> 3. During ICANN 54, ICANN staff were informed of a new requirement that
>> SLE data must be collected for a period of 6 months before SLAs could be
>> set. ICANN staff was further informed that the March 2016 timeframe was
>> unacceptable since a 6-month data collection requirement would lead to
>> insufficient time being available to incorporate the SLE-derived SLAs
>> into the ICANN-PTI contract. A request was made to ICANN to make
>> available RZMS and RT raw data so that SLEs could be extracted from data
>> collected by the current RZMS/RT systems. Due to the confidential nature
>> of the root zone change request data, which includes email discussions
>> between ICANN staff and the requesters in which potentially business
>> proprietary details of registry operation are disclosed, ICANN staff
>> informed the CWG chairs and DT-A that releasing the raw RZMS/RT data
>> would be a violation of existing IANA policy and thus, would not be
>> possible, particularly to any organization that competes in the domain
>> name space. ICANN staff also again explained that the RZMS/RT systems do
>> not currently collect data the way the SLEs were defined and the primary
>> task for ICANN was to modify RZMS in order to collect the new SLEs.
>> 4. As a compromise to try to address the new 6-month data collection
>> requirement, ICANN staff contracted with Viagenie as an independent and
>> neutral third-party to explore whether the data collected by the current
>> RZMS/RT system could be used to "seed" some portion of the SLEs, thereby
>> reducing the data collection time requirement.
>> 5. Viagenie completed their work and presented a summary on the Feb 4th
>> CWG call, confirming that: (a) The current RZMS/RT systems do not collect
>> data in accordance with the newly defined SLEs; (b) The heuristics
>> developed provided approximations for most metrics, but some
>> approximations were less conclusive; and (c) The RZMS/RT tool is a
>> complex system that frequently relies on email interactions for
>> progressing request state.
>> 6. In parallel to the work ICANN contracted Viagenie to perform, ICANN
>> has continued to pursue modifying the RZMS system to collect data in the
>> way that the SLEs were defined. ICANN now expects that the RZMS
>> modifications will be completed at the end of February, a month ahead of
>> schedule. Data collection for the new SLEs can thus begin in March.
>> Assuming everything goes well, this would allow for sufficient time for
>> SLE data collection without delay of the transition in order to meet the
>> 6-month SLE data collection requirement.
>> The main approach to implementing the SLEs had always been to make code
>> changes to the RZMS so that it can capture processing time data that the
>> DT-A defined for all future change request processing. ICANN is on-track
>> to have this work completed by the end of this month, February.
>> If the CWG would like any additional clarification around the work
>> performed by Viagenie, the RZMS development work, or other aspects of the
>> technical implementation of the transition, please let ICANN staff know
>> and we will be happy to provide clarification.
>> Regards,
>> -drc
> <sle-reporting-metric-findings-viagenie-20160204-cwg.pdf>
> <sle-reporting-metric-findings-viagenie-20160208[1].pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

More information about the dt1 mailing list