[CWG-Stewardship] Service Level Expectations Design Team Template

[Gomes, Chuck]

Andrew,

How do you define wrong?  Who defines wrong?

Having a " solid and acceptable mechanism to resolve such issues in the future " sounds like a good plan but it depends on what is determined to be 'solid' and whether registries determine what is acceptable.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 5:57 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Service Level Expectations Design Team Template

On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 04:17:28PM +0900, Jordan Carter wrote:
> 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....

I'm really uncomfortable with this addition.

It sounds to me like this is an attempt to add to the transition _changes_ to the pre-transition state of affairs.  It entails a claim that the existing state of affairs is not good enough; but that would be acceptable.  It _also_, however, entails a claim that the post-transition change management procedures won't work, so one needs to get any such changes done now.  If that is true, the transition will be unsuccessful in its own terms and therefore would be bad.

I believe this WG needs to take a firm position: if there is something that is wrong in the existing arrangements and that is not directly related to the NTIA contract itself or the accountability framework as it exists today, thenthat wrong thing actually ought to persist across the transtition precisely because it should be possible to deal with it in an entirely acceptable way afterwards.  The test of "acceptable way" is not "I am sure I'll get what I want," but, "I am sure that the procedure by which the decision will be made will be one I can accept."  In fact, the more such cases we have to use as measures, the more likely we are to think we have a transition plan that really solves the problem.

Therefore, I oppose strongly this additional condition.  It's on the wrong side of the transition.  This is not the opportunity to ensure that one's current issue is solved; this is the opportunity to ensure that one's issue will have a solid and acceptable mechanism to resolve such issues in the future

Best regards,

A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship