[CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....

Fri Jun 12 14:56:25 UTC 2015

Hi Chuck,

My point was that since you identified some items in DT-A that post some
concern, would it not have been better not to include it in the SLE for now
and rather go with what works at the moment. I am not really a fan of
introducing new SLE requirement beyond what is already working in this
transition process.

Regards

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  Seun,
>
>
>
> I do not understand your  first question: proceed with what in our
> proposal?  The proposal doesn’t contain any SLEs.
>
>
>
> I am not a member of DT-A so I provided my input via the CWG list and
> through direct communications with DT-A participants.  In Istanbul, I
> participated in the discussions of the full group regarding DT-A work and
> also had some one-to-one conversations with Paul.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:06 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Paul M Kane - CWG; David Conrad; cwg-stewardship at icann.org;
> dt1 at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
>
>
>
> Hi Chuck,
>
> If you think there are some that would indeed affect verisign then why did
> we have to still proceed with it in our proposal. Secondly when you say
> "you have discussed with Paul" I hope you meant you formerly flagged this
> within the DT.
>
> Regards
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 11 Jun 2015 21:59, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> David,
>
> I am only responding to your question about the Root Zone Maintainer
> involvement.  I have been monitoring the progress of the SLEs and have been
> involving our lead person in that regard.  So far there are only a few SLEs
> that would impact the Maintainer roll.  I communicated to Paul that some of
> the listed thresholds might impact the process that Verisign uses, which is
> very comprehensive.  We will look at those again once they progress further
> and we definitely will cooperate however needed in this regard.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at icann.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:50 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Paul M Kane - CWG
> Cc: dt1 at icann.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
>
> Hi,
>
> As the person tagged with the responsibility for overseeing ICANN's
> development of the code associated with implementing the SLEs (among other
> things), I'd just like to point out that the implementation of this hasn't
> really been discussed, either internally within the development team or
> with NTIA (at least by ICANN).  We've discussed the SLEs for IANA's
> component of Root Zone Management on a very interim level within the IANA
> team, and the development team leader has been involved in discussions
> relating to some of the metrics we'll likely want to start capturing, but
> that is the extent of it so far.  It may also be worth pointing out that
> other operational communities are working on SL{A,E}s that will impact
> implementation schedules.
>
> I'm also a bit curious: since implementation of root zone changes involves
> more than ICANN, has the Root Zone Maintainer been involved in the
> development of these SLEs and been equally committed by others to the
> implementation plan described below?
>
> I had thought the plan was to maintain the existing SLAs as defined by
> NTIA and the IETF until after the transition and then to evolve those SLAs
> to meet the community (not just the names community) requirements. Was I
> mistaken?
>
> I'd note that Paul's estimate of how long the implementation of the names
> SLEs will take for this single recommendation may help inform the CWG in
> forming its full implementation timeline which is due to ICG.
>
> Thanks,
> -drc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 11:07 AM
> To: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk>
> Cc: "dt1 at icann.org" <dt1 at icann.org>, CWG Mailing List
> <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
>
> >Thanks Paul.  Let me make sure I understand correctly.
> >
> >1. In the next 4 weeks:  DT-A & IANA will develop an SLE framework and
> >obtain approval by the SLE WG.
> >2. In the following 2 weeks: IANA will develop an implementation plan.
> >3. In two weeks after that, you and Kim will seek NTIA approval to test
> >and implement the plan.
> >4. In the next month, the resources to extract the times needed will be
> >deployed.
> >5. In 2-3 months after the ability to extract times, proposed SLEs will
> >be tested by IANA in cooperation with the SLE WG.
> >6. The SLE is completed at this point.
> >7. In the Jan/Feb 2016 timeframe the implementation phase will begin. The
> >Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or
> >identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world
> >experience.
> >8. The SLE will be in place at the time of transition.
> >9. Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
> >
> >I tried to figure out where the two community check points fit into this
> >but had trouble doing that.
> >
> >What will the communication check points entail?
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk]
> >Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:46 AM
> >To: Gomes, Chuck
> >Cc: dt1 at icann.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> >Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
> >
> >Thanks Chuck
> >
> >
> >Yes - the plan is that we have an SLE in place from the start of the
> >transition, developed by IANA and SLE WG but ICANN/IANA need to be
> >confident that the thresholds are reasonable and that there is a
> >mechanism in place to review them after the transition - that the role of
> >the CSC.
> >That's the end goal but how to get there......?
> >
> >In the next month or so the SLE framework should be completed (without
> >thresholds being specified).
> >
> >We need to ask NTIA for permission to run tests to help populate the
> >SLE...
> >which is a pre-implementation phase and community check point (1).
> >The pre-implementation phase needs to be based on real-world testing and
> >statistics gathering upon which the thresholds will be determined by IANA
> >working with the SLE WG.
> >
> >The SLE is then completed and before being finalized there will be a
> >short period of community check point (2) for the purpose of checking
> >that all issues have been addressed.  The SLE will then be submitted
> >along with the rest of the proposal to NTIA for review...and if approved
> >progresses to the Implementation Phase.
> >
> >The Implementation Phase will confirm the thresholds are reasonable or
> >identify which (if any) need reconsideration based on real world
> >experience.
> >
> >Post transition the CSC and IANA work together on SLE review.
> >
> >Hope I've answered your questions.
> >
> >best
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>:
> >
> >> Paul,
> >>
> >> Mostly this looks pretty good to me but there is one thing that is
> >> different than what I understood from discussions earlier this week.
> >> My understanding was that the CSC would consider the SLEs proposed by
> >> the SLE WG after it is formed, i.e., after the transition occurs and
> >> that the SLEs would hence be implemented after the transition.  I note
> >> in your item 9) below: " SLE in place from the date of Transition ".
> >>Which is correct?
> >>
> >> I personally like the idea of the SLEs being in place at transition,
> >> but if that is going to be the case I think there needs to be some
> >> check point(s) with the community including direct customers during
> >> the implementation process to ensure that the final SLEs are
> >> acceptable.  I raised this issue in the CWG call on Tuesday and
> >> understood that those check points would not be needed before
> >> transition because the CSC would be dealing with this after transition.
> >>
> >> I don't think resolution of this is needed now but it certainly is
> >> needed before the implementation process is started.
> >>
> >> Chuck
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane -
> >> CWG
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:08 AM
> >> To: dt1 at icann.org
> >> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> >> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE Working Group - going forward.....
> >>
> >> Dear all
> >>
> >> I am pleased to advise we are making good progress now... and in light
> >> of the winding down of the CWG - to ensure our work is empowered to
> >> continue as discussd last week, may I propose that we rename DT-A -
> >> the SLE Ad-hoc Working Group  (SLE WG).
> >>
> >> 1) The CWG has the work of the SLE Design Team as a Community
> >> initiative in the proposal - I ask that Design Team will be renamed to
> >> SLE Ad-Hoc Working Group (SLE WG).
> >> 2) IANA and Adam (my guy) are going to refine the SLE and then present
> >> that to the WG for adoption (approx 4 weeks to finish).
> >> 3) Once agreed, IANA will develop an Implementation plan (2 weeks)
> >> including an internal ICANN request for Technical Resources.
> >> 4) The Implementation plan needs NTIA approval (Kim and I will work
> >> with NTIA to secure approval) - 2 weeks.
> >> 5) Once NTIA has approved, the resources to extract the times needed
> >> will be
> >> deployed.- 1 month
> >> 6) IANA will then for 2 to 3 months run a trial capturing real world
> >> transaction information and provide that to the WG
> >> 7) With real world data (that IANA is comfortable with) - we will
> >> populate the agreed thresholds for the SLE.
> >> 8) With the SLE data specified (Jan/Feb 2016), the SLE will be in
> >> place and ready for the Implementation Phase.Checking of the SLE
> >> during the Implementation Phase
> >> 9) SLE in place from the date of Transition !
> >>
> >> Hope this is helpful
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> >> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> >CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150612/818bfd01/attachment-0001.html>