[ICANN-CSC] Draft Report for the month of October 2016

[Gannon, James-1]

Thanks Elise,

Yes I will join Kal in saying that this is excellent, and much more
'finished' looking than I had expected.
Lot of data to digest so will review over the weekend I think when I can
give full attention to it.


James Gannon
IGM Manager – Projects & IT Security SME

-----Original Message-----
From: icann-csc-bounces at icann.org [mailto:icann-csc-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Feher, Kal
Sent: 15 November 2016 08:09
To: icann-csc at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] Draft Report for the month of October 2016

Thanks Elise and thanks to all the folks at PTI that put this together.

Its very polished! More polished than I had in mind when we asked for this.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I was truly expecting plain text and
tables. We're still working out what we want, I think Byron referred to it
as storming, so requirements will change, stuff will move and hopefully that
doesnt result in a wastage of effort at PTI.

As for the actual content and its utility for the CSC's own report, I'll
need to spend some time digesting it.

Thank you again.

Kal Feher





On 15/11/16, 16:29, "icann-csc-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Elise Gerich"
<icann-csc-bounces at icann.org on behalf of elise.gerich at iana.org>
wrote:

>Dear Colleagues,
>
>Attached is our first draft format for the monthly Name Function 
>performance reports.  This information, excluding the descriptive 
>narrative about SLA exceptions, is the output of the data behind the 
>Name Function Dashboard and is programmatically generated.  Our goal is 
>to pull data for the reports from the collected measurements and to 
>avoid manually compiling reports.
>
>When the Design Team established the SLAs there was a discussion about 
>certain scenarios that would cause PTI to miss the SLA for those types 
>of scenarios.  Two of those scenarios were experienced in this 
>reporting period, and as predicted it caused exceptions.  The two 
>scenarios are: 1) receipt of a request on a Friday when there is a 
>non-working Monday due to a holiday, and 2) an aspirational goal to 
>reduce handling of ccTLD creations from the previous 120 day target to 
>a 60 day target.  As you will see on page 34 of the report, the primary 
>cause of the exceptions related to Manual Lodgment Time as well as 
>Validation and Review Routine Non-Techincal was due to the requests 
>³spanned non-business days².  The primary cause for Validation and 
>Review ccTLD Creation/Transfer was due to one request missing the
³aspirational goal² in the time period.
>
>We welcome your feedback and comments about this draft report which 
>covers PTI¹s Name Function SLA compliance for October 2016.
>
>Best regards,
>Elise
> 
>Elise Gerich| President
>PTI| Public Technical Identifiers
>12025 Waterfront Drive | Los Angeles, CA 90094
> 
>elise.gerich at iana.org | +1 310 463 1108
> 
> 
>

_______________________________________________
ICANN-CSC mailing list
ICANN-CSC at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-csc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5115 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-csc/attachments/20161115/a67fc3c0/smime.p7s>