<div dir="ltr">Dear Jay and all,<div><br></div><div>I am OK with most of this.</div><div><br></div><div>About #5, it sounds like each and every IANA action needs ICANN Board approval, and it could be interpreted as if none of our numbers really matter, because there is an unknown and uncontrolled delay added to everything. In reality, if I am not mistaken, it is a very small number of infrequent and politically delicate transactions (delegations, revocations, transfers of TLDs) that need such approval. If so, that should be pointed out in #5.</div><div><br></div><div>Patricio</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Jay Daley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jay@nzrs.net.nz" target="_blank">jay@nzrs.net.nz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">How about we restate my note below as follows and see if we can all sign up to it by email?<br>
<span class=""><br>
===<br>
Recognising that:<br>
<br>
1. The intent is to set targets that reasonably approximate current performance; and<br>
2. The difference between this level of specification and the previous NTIA specification is so large that there are many new areas being introduced; and<br>
</span>3. The CSC will be able to address any outstanding areas as needed, specifically including<br>
- the difference between business days and calendar days for SLA monitoring<br>
- the targets set in the RZMA<br>
<br>
and with the reservations that<br>
<br>
4. the negotiation of the RZMA was not conducted with any community input and so the figure of 72 hours has not been verified by the community as representing the current performance; and<br>
5. the time it takes the ICANN Board to approve an IANA action is a key part of the overall response time that an IANA customer can expect and yet it is unclear what role the CSC has in setting targets for that or even monitoring that.<br>
<br>
then DT-A accepts this as the final SLE targets.<br>
====<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Jay<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
> On 4/08/2016, at 11:08 AM, Jay Daley <<a href="mailto:jay@nzrs.net.nz">jay@nzrs.net.nz</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi Jeff<br>
><br>
> Both Elaine and I asked a number of questions about this and were given assurances that the CSC could look at both those two issues and just about anything else. The one area I remain unclear on is the time it takes the ICANN board to do their bit and what role the CSC can have in at least ensuring that is monitored and reported on, if not set targets for.<br>
><br>
> regards<br>
> Jay<br>
><br>
>> On 4/08/2016, at 11:05 AM, Jeffrey Eckhaus <<a href="mailto:jeff@rightside.co">jeff@rightside.co</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hello<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> In general , I would like to follow up and support Jay's statements below and accept the SLE targets .<br>
>><br>
>> The only issue that concerns me is the assumption that the CSC will be able to address any outstanding areas, such as the calendar vs. business day issue and VRSN RZM SLA after transition. I have missed a few calls so unsure if that is a solid assumption or just wishful thinking ?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Thanks<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Jeff<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> On Aug 3, 2016, at 3:47 PM, Jay Daley <<a href="mailto:jay@nzrs.net.nz">jay@nzrs.net.nz</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi Nathalie<br>
>>><br>
>>> I would very much prefer a call of the design team for us to discuss and agree a consensus position and I’m uncomfortable giving a view without doing so. However, since I’m asked, this is my view below but there remains the possibility that one of my colleagues on DT-A raises an issue that I am currently unaware of and I agree with.<br>
>>><br>
>>> ===<br>
>>> Recognising that:<br>
>>><br>
>>> 1. The intent is to set targets that reasonably approximate current performance; and<br>
>>> 2. The difference between this level of specification and the previous NTIA specification is so large that there are many new areas being introduced; and<br>
>>> 3. The CSC will be able to address any outstanding areas as needed.<br>
>>><br>
>>> and with the one reservation that the negotiation of the RZMA was not conducted with any community input and so the figure of 72 hours has not been verified by the community as representing the current performance,<br>
>>><br>
>>> then I am happy to accept this as the final SLE targets.<br>
>>> ====<br>
>>><br>
>>> Jay<br>
>>><br>
>>>> On 4/08/2016, at 5:44 AM, Nathalie Vergnolle <<a href="mailto:nathalie.vergnolle@icann.org">nathalie.vergnolle@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Dear members of the Names SLEs work group,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> The attached document reflects the various conversations that were held on the topic of Names SLEs:<br>
>>>> · It lists all the measurements as defined by the work group in the report issued in September 2015 (<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/DT-A+Service+Levels+Expectations?preview=/52891144/56135156/IANA%20Service%20Level%20Expectations%20-%20APPROVED.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/DT-A+Service+Levels+Expectations?preview=/52891144/56135156/IANA%20Service%20Level%20Expectations%20-%20APPROVED.pdf</a> )<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> · Column D reflects the discussions held in Istanbul in March 2015 ( please note that the measurements discussed then were slightly different from the final measurements listed here, and mapping was left to staff's appreciation. Some values may have have been improperly mapped here.)<br>
>>>> Link to the Istanbul March 2015 document: <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/CWG-%20DT-A%20-%20SLE%20-%20for%20discussion%20in%20Istanbul%20-%20DRAFT.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52891144/CWG-%20DT-A%20-%20SLE%20-%20for%20discussion%20in%20Istanbul%20-%20DRAFT.pdf</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> · Column E reflects the IANA proposal as per the document circulated by Kim Davies on 15-July16 (<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt1/attachments/20160715/fc7cd83b/PreliminarySLEData-0001.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt1/attachments/20160715/fc7cd83b/PreliminarySLEData-0001.pdf</a> )<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> · Column F reflects the discussions held on the DT-A call of 21-July-16 (links to the recordings can be found under the Meetings & Work Sessions section of the Implementation pagehttps://<a href="http://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation</a> )<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> · Column G reflects the discussions held on the DT-A call of 01-Aug-16 (links to the recordings can be found under the Meetings & Work Sessions section of the Implementation pagehttps://<a href="http://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation</a> ).<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> · As requested by the group on August 1st, IANA has reviewed the latest proposals and provided feedback in the Notes section (column H).<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Since this document was only circulated yesterday, and in order to give you more time to review, we have cancelled today’s call on Names SLEs.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Kindly asking all members of the Names SLEs work group to provide their feedback through the mailing list no later than Friday, August 5th.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> We plan to circulate this document to the CWG mailing list no later than Monday, August 8th, so that final discussions can be held during the following CWG call scheduled on August 11th , with the hope to finalize a set of performance targets in time for the August 12th NTIA report.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Thank you for your collaboration,<br>
>>>> Nathalie.<br>
>>>> <SLA proposals 02Aug16.xlsx>_______________________________________________<br>
>>>> dt1 mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:dt1@icann.org">dt1@icann.org</a><br>
>>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt1</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>> Jay Daley<br>
>>> Chief Executive<br>
>>> NZRS Ltd<br>
>>> desk: <a href="tel:%2B64%204%20931%206977" value="+6449316977">+64 4 931 6977</a><br>
>>> mobile: <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20678840" value="+6421678840">+64 21 678840</a><br>
>>> linkedin: <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> dt1 mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:dt1@icann.org">dt1@icann.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt1</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Jay Daley<br>
> Chief Executive<br>
> NZRS Ltd<br>
> desk: <a href="tel:%2B64%204%20931%206977" value="+6449316977">+64 4 931 6977</a><br>
> mobile: <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20678840" value="+6421678840">+64 21 678840</a><br>
> linkedin: <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Jay Daley<br>
Chief Executive<br>
NZRS Ltd<br>
desk: <a href="tel:%2B64%204%20931%206977" value="+6449316977">+64 4 931 6977</a><br>
mobile: <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20678840" value="+6421678840">+64 21 678840</a><br>
linkedin: <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
dt1 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:dt1@icann.org">dt1@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt1</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>