<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Kim Davies <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kim.davies@icann.org" target="_blank">kim.davies@icann.org</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span><br>
> ICANN/IANA have argued there is little point in double counting, ie capturing the time for each SLE process step, then a for each change request adding up each step to have a total overall processing time SLE.<br>
> From my perspective the two should equate to the same and conducting an SLE for the aggregated time is futile as it is almost double counting as the total should be the sum of the earlier (measured) component process steps.<br>
<br>
</span>I believe I am aligned with your thoughts.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree with Paul and Kim on this point.</div><div><br></div><div>Another reason for not using the total aggregated time as a variable is that we would not know how to assign an SLE to it, since the possibility of multiple repeated technical checks implies that the total time could be arbitrarily large.</div><div><br></div><div>There is a mention in Paul's message of the possibility of setting a maximum for "in between time". I believe there should be no "in between time". Either the ball is with the customer or with IANA, but never in limbo. Whenever it is with IANA, it should be accounted for somewhere.</div><div><br></div><div>Patricio</div></div><br></div></div>