[CWG-Stewardship] Service Level Expectations Design Team Template

[Gomes, Chuck]

+1

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 4:00 PM
To: Alan Greenberg
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Service Level Expectations Design Team Template

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 <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto: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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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.
www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/>

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive
InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649<tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan at internetnz.net.nz');>
Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan at internetnz.net.nz');>

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto: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/20150306/eafc2d41/attachment.html>