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

Mon Nov 21 07:01:13 UTC 2016

Hi,

Thanks for the positive feedback and the comments on PTI’s Performance report for the month of October 2016.

One of the questions that I received was not specifically about the performance of PTI, but about its location and the holidays associated with the location.  PTI is housed in ICANN’s corporate facility in Los Angeles, CA.  PTI has four IANA Services Specialists that respond to and process root zone requests and all four of those specialists are based in Los Angles. When there are long holidays, like the one over the New Year and for which all the offices close, PTI (and previously the IANA Department) assigns individuals to cover the holiday period so that root zone requests do not linger in our queues and requesters do not have a long wait time for the completion of their requests.  For the four or five other single day holidays which the Los Angeles office observes, the data has shown that it is an exception for new submisions to arrive and to wait in the queue due to a holiday, though it did happen in the month of October. When this exception occurs, the response time to a new ticket may exceed three calendar days which is the current SLA set by Design Team-A.  My staffing choice has been to not schedule someone to work during the non-business day since very few requesters, if any, will experience a minimum delay in receiving a response to their initial submission.  If there are urgent issues or requests that happen over the weekend or the one day holiday, we are on call to address emergency issues and problems, and all the managers of the TLDs have the emergency hot line phone number to reach us.  Since it is such a small team that handles the requests for changes to the root zone, and they benefit by working closely together in the same facility, the community has benefited by us keeping this small team together in a single location.  

Best regards,
--Elise

-----Original Message-----
From: <icann-csc-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "Gannon, James-1" <james-1.gannon at novartis.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 6:00 AM
To: "Feher, Kal" <Kalman.Feher at neustar.biz>, "icann-csc at icann.org" <icann-csc at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] Draft Report for the month of October 2016

    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: 4607 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/icann-csc/attachments/20161121/236a6c66/smime.p7s>