[CWG-Stewardship] Service Level Expectations Design Team Template

Sun Mar 1 21:40:03 UTC 2015

Sorry, Jordan and anyone else I may have offended or put off. The 
word was poorly chosen. I certainly agree that no one should settle 
for less than they have today, and I have no problem with further 
clarity. I do have a problem with requirement which would force 
internal changes within IANA at the same time as the transition is 
going on. That violates the rule of making as few changes as possible 
in parallel.

Alan

At 01/03/2015 03:59 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
>Alan, all:
>
>Since operational communities want a workable solution, calls of 
>'hostage' are probably wide of the mark and to be honest don't help 
>the conversation flow. They could indeed unkindly be described as a 
>tactic designed to stifle debate. I can't see that being your 
>intention here, but it could be the effect of your words.
>
>We, IANA customers, need this system to work because our work in 
>turn depends on it. The names community should be entitled to at 
>least as good an outcome from the post-transition settlement as 
>today's settlement offers, but that baseline is no reason not to 
>pitch for greater clarity and certainty when we can.
>
>I've had some private correspondence suggesting there are some real 
>issues that mean my simple distinction & view isn't necessarily 
>workable. There may be substantive SLA improvements compared with 
>status quo that are needed. I don't know yet. If there are, I'm 
>happy to change my mind and argue they should be done as part of the 
>transition.
>
>Given the CWG has spent quite some time on a wide range of issues 
>that are of less importance than this, I'm sure some time spent 
>assuring operational quality won't be wasted.
>
>Will try and write more later today.
>
>Jordan
>
>On Monday, 2 March 2015, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>This worries me.
>
>How do we define "needs"? It sounds perilously close to that 
>community holding the transition hostage for something that they want.
>
>Alan
>
>At 01/03/2015 02:17 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
>>I've thought of a b/c mid point complication:
>>
>>It is: whether anything needs to be added to currently documented 
>>SLA standards to allow the transition to be acceptable to any key 
>>customer community.
>>
>>That's not a wholesale review but it's a little more than b), while 
>>respecting the need for conservatism and efficiency....
>>
>>Jordan
>>
>>On Sunday, 1 March 2015, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com > wrote:
>>+1 to Jordan's specific suggestion as well;  considering that 
>>everything works just fine right now is an indication that 
>>repeating the current SLA would at least maintain status quo.
>>Will be good if that methodology is applied to other design teams 
>>as much as possible.
>>The goal is to build a stronger ICANN and so long as we have 
>>a  multistakeholder means/process to do that, then our job is done.
>>Cheers!
>>sent from Google nexus 4
>>kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>On 1 Mar 2015 01:46, "Chris Disspain" <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:
>>You read me right, man ;-)
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Chris
>>On 1 Mar 2015, at 11:35 , Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>I think Chris's proposal makes sense too in logically separating:
>>>a) porting across existing service level obligations to the 
>>>post-transition environment;
>>>b) creating the possibility of reviewing and changing them in future; and
>>>c) reviewing and updating the substantive content
>>>If I read him right a) and b) should be done, but c) should not.
>>>That might trim the work this design team needs to do and make 
>>>finalising the names community proposal easier...
>>>cheers
>>>Jordan
>>>On 1 March 2015 at 08:56, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>Hi,
>>>Makes sense to me.
>>>
>>>avri
>>>On 28-Feb-15 18:43, Chris Disspain wrote:
>>>>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?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------
>>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>><http://www.avast.com/>www.avast.com
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Jordan Carter
>>
>>Chief Executive
>>InternetNZ
>>
>>04 495 2118 (office) | <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649>+64 21 442 649 (mob)
>>jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>Skype: jordancarter
>>
>>A better world through a better Internet
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>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>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>--
>Jordan Carter
>Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>
>+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>
>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>--
>Jordan Carter
>Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>
>+64-21-442-649 | <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>
>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150301/31167c1e/attachment.html>