[CWG-Stewardship] Comment on III.A.ii (131 ff) Re: For your review - CWG-Stewardship Proposal v2

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Wed Jun 3 22:20:41 UTC 2015


I know I've said this before, so I won't go on, but it seems more than
a little strange to be making a "final" proposal that includes a large
section that basically says, "We ran out of time to do this."  I know
why that happened, but it is still awfully hard to swallow such a
thing as the "final" document.

Why not add here in ¶ 137 the following sentences:

---%<---cut here---
In the interests of changing as few things as possible at the moment of transition, the DT recommends making the SLEs exactly the same as the SLAs under the NTIA contract for a period of six months.  At the end of that six months, the new SLEs as currently under development can be adopted.  This permits the adoption of new SLEs more in keeping with actual IANA performance, while maintaining the old instrument of measurement across the horizon of the transition.
--->%---cut here---

I'm not especially wedded to the 6 months, though I think much shorter would be ill-advised.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list