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

[Jay Daley]

Thanks Elise

That’s great, thanks.  In contrast to others on this list, this report is almost exactly what I was expecting.  

I have some suggested changes and as we’re still to develop our operational procedures I’ll just address them generally and we can decide later how to judge whether others agree and how they should be officially requested if they are agreed:

1.  Can we have the exception reports next to the metrics they refer to rather than at the end - it’s a lot easier to read that way.

2.  The report would benefit from the following additional elements

- a few paragraphs at the front that contain
— a summary of performance
— a one-liner about any developments under way that are likely to have an impact on the SLA
— a brief recap of any issues that have spanned more than one report

- a reference appendix with common terms explained.  This rarely changes but is particularly useful to readers who do not live and breathe this stuff everyday and will forget the meaning/nuances of various terms on a regular basis.

3.  It looks to me as if the targets for technical checks are set too tight and can be loosened to 10m as that will have no noticeable impact on customers and provide an achievable target.

Finally, a more general but crucially important point:

4.  With reference to the delay caused by US holidays - The issue of the global nature of the PTI service is a complex one that the CSC should discuss because it directly concerns customer service.  I recall Fadi explaining that one of the reasons he was setting up global hubs (I hope I have the terminology correct) in Singapore and Istanbul was to allow around the globe service and yet PTI appears to work solely on US West Coast time.


cheers
Jay


> On 15/11/2016, at 8:29 PM, Elise Gerich <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 “spanned non-business days”.  The primary cause for Validation and Review ccTLD Creation/Transfer was due to one request missing the “aspirational goal” in the time period.
> 
> We welcome your feedback and comments about this draft report which covers PTI’s 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
> 
> 
> 
> <pticsc-sample2[1].pdf>_______________________________________________
> ICANN-CSC mailing list
> ICANN-CSC at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-csc


-- 
Jay Daley
Chief Executive
NZRS Ltd
desk: +64 4 931 6977
mobile: +64 21 678840
linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley