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

Thu Feb 25 16:09:21 UTC 2016

I would like to join the CWG SLE discussion but do not have dial in
details. If this is available please send to me.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:26 AM, Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk
> wrote:

> Trang
>
> Many thanks for the email reminder.
>
> I sent out the presentation some weeks ago to the members directly (I was
> experiencing mailing list issues so direct guaranteed circulation) and
> there is
> interest in having a call before or meeting at ICANN Marrakech to discuss.
> Fundamentally, despite being offered access to the raw data mid December,
> then
> 12 Jan, then end Jan.
>
> Many of the Working Group will be in Marrakech and I found our Dublin
> meeting
> with Akram very useful so would it be possible to arrange a similar meeting
> (same ICANN staff list) in Marrakech.
>
> I believe Jay, Patricio, Elaine and the two Jeffs will be present.  I will
> not
> be in Marrakech but it would be good for you to hear from other members of
> the
> Working Group.
>
> With regard to the substantive (now annulled by ICANN) on the 4th Feb a
> consultant gave a presentation to say that it was too complicated and the
> raw
> IANA transaction data would not be made available to us.
>
> I think the WG members would have preferred to have seen the raw data and
> come
> to that conclusion that the data was not fit for the intended purpose
> themselves. If your consultant is controllable because you have
> constrained him
> via NDA, I am sure many if not all of the volunteer WG members would have
> entered into an appropriate NDA which would have saved ICANN money by not
> having
> pay external consultants as well as build some good PR too.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org>:
>
> > 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
> > ICANN
> >
> >
> >
> > -----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
> > >ICANN CTO
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dt1 mailing list
> dt1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt1
>

-- 

[image: Donuts Inc.] <http://www.donuts.domains>
*Elaine Pruis*, Vice President, Operations
*Donuts Inc. <http://www.donuts.domains>*
10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue Washington, 98004, U.S.A. |
Telephone: 509.899.3161
[image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc>[image: Facebook]
<https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds>[image: Linked In]
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc->
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt1/attachments/20160225/a5dbfb8b/attachment.html>