[CWG-Stewardship] Service Level Expectations Design Team Template

[Alan Greenberg]

I strongly support this. We have sufficient work to do in just making 
the transition happen. Changes that are not mandatory for an 
effective transition are, in my mind, either out of scope, or distractions.

Alan

At 28/02/2015 06:43 PM, Chris Disspain wrote:
>Greetings Paul and All,
>
>Thanks you Paul for the work done on this so far.
>
>I have a concern about the work this design team will undertake 
>being achievable in a timely manner AND in fact being necessary at 
>this stage. Specifically my concern revolves around item 2 in the 
>detailed description 'Document, list and detail how these current 
>SLEs should be modified as part of the transition proposal to 
>address any gaps or issues that were identified'.
>
>The IANA function is currently performed in accordance with the 
>documents available at;
>
>https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-1-31may12-en.pdf
>
>https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-2-redacted-31may12-en.pdf
>
>https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-3-redacted-31may12-en.pdf
>
>http://www.iana.org/performance
>
>
>Whilst I know that there are some who believe that there can be 
>improvements in the current service levels and performance of IANA 
>including in the area of further automation and so on, it is my 
>understanding that there is general consensus amongst the IANA 
>customers that the current service levels and performance of IANA 
>are satisfactory.
>
>Part of my concern is that changes to these service levels will need 
>to be carefully thought through (not least to ensure that any 
>changes don't impinge on policy) and discussed by and bought into by 
>the IANA customers which is a pretty tall order given the rest of 
>the work that needs to be done in the time frame we have set.
>
>On that basis I wonder whether we would not be better served by 
>accepting the current status quo and building a mechanism for review 
>and negotiated changes to those service levels that could be 
>employed immediately after transition and on an ongoing basis.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>On 1 Mar 2015, at 09:36 , Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > On behalf of Paul Kane, please find attached the completed 
> template for the Service Levels Expectations Design Team.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Marika
>
>
>Greetings Paul and All,
>
>Thanks you Paul for the work done on this so far.
>
>I have a concern about the work this design team will undertake 
>being achievable in a timely manner AND in fact being necessary at 
>this stage. Specifically my concern revolves around item 2 in the 
>detailed description 'Document, list and detail how these current 
>SLEs should be modified as part of the transition proposal to 
>address any gaps or issues that were identified'.
>
>The IANA function is currently performed in accordance with the 
>documents available at;
>
><https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-1-31may12-en.pdf>https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-1-31may12-en.pdf
>
>https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-2-redacted-31may12-en.pdf
>
><https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-3-redacted-31may12-en.pdf>https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-i-3-redacted-31may12-en.pdf
>http://www.iana.org/performance
>
>
>Whilst I know that there are some who believe that there can be 
>improvements in the current service levels and performance of IANA 
>including in the area of further automation and so on, it is my 
>understanding that there is general consensus amongst the IANA 
>customers that the current service levels and performance of IANA 
>are satisfactory.
>
>Part of my concern is that changes to these service levels will need 
>to be carefully thought through (not least to ensure that any 
>changes don't impinge on policy) and discussed by and bought into by 
>the IANA customers which is a pretty tall order given the rest of 
>the work that needs to be done in the time frame we have set.
>
>On that basis I wonder whether we would not be better served by 
>accepting the current status quo and building a mechanism for review 
>and negotiated changes to those service levels that could be 
>employed immediately after transition and on an ongoing basis.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>
>On 1 Mar 2015, at 09:36 , Marika Konings 
><<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
>
>>Dear All,
>>
>>On behalf of Paul Kane, please find attached the completed template 
>>for the Service Levels Expectations Design Team.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Marika
>
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename*0="Design Team - Service Level"
>  Expectations - 28 February 2015 - PK";
>         filename*1=".docx"
>Content-Type: 
>application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;
>         x-unix-mode=0644; name="Design Team - Service Level 
> Expectations - 28"
>  February 2015 - PK.docx"
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150228/77f66a6b/attachment-0001.html>