[CWG-Stewardship] SLE update - ICANN seeks to delay SLE Accountability reporting......

[Gomes, Chuck]

I personally had assumed that the new SLEs would be implemented before or at the transition, but that doesn't mean that our proposal made that clear.  Whether the SLEs are implemented as I thought they would be or as Andrew suggests, we need to first agree on the SLEs.  Most of them are not defined yet.  The way I understand it is that the testing that the SLE WG proposed to help us define the SLEs.  If I am correct on that, then we need to focus on implementing the testing.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 3:21 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE update - ICANN seeks to delay SLE Accountability reporting......

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 07:11:35PM +0100, Paul M Kane - CWG wrote:
> the IANA operator is either:
> a)  accountable to the NTIA via the SLA, or
> b) accountable to the naming community via the SLE.  

Obviously.  But changing the counterparty and changing the measurements in question are two completely separate problems.  One is contract-only, the other involves changes to how the data is gathered, what the thresholds are, and even what data is gathered.  

> So delay in finalising the SLE just delays the date of transition from NTIA.

That doesn't follow, and Annex H doesn't say that.  There's nothing in Annex H by my reading that requires that the actual data gathered and the levels of service need to change at the same time the parties to the agreement change, unless I am missing something.

>From a technical operations standpoint, this is the most stable way to
proceed:

1.  Get an agreement that the old SLE measurements and levels remain in place but that the new counterparty is ICANN to PTI.

2.  Get an agreement that within n months (for some n) the new SLE measurements and levels take effect.

[transition can happen after that]

3.  Run in parallel the new-SLE and old-SLE measurements under ICANN stewardship.  Iterate until working.

4.  Switch over to new SLEs by month n.

As nearly as I can tell, that approach is completely consistent with what's in Annex H and doesn't block the transition.  I was not arguing that the new SLEs are not valuable or shouldn't be pursued.  I argued before (and argue now) that the above approach is consistent with the goal, maximises stability, and allows the transition.  Contrary to what Milton seems to be implying, I'm not trying to undo any consensus; frankly, this is what I thought people had agreed to since the SLE text wasn't even close to ready in time to submit to the ICG.

If people are insistent on something else and IANA can't deliver on the timetable we want (which seems to be the report), what is the fallback plan?  For it seems to me that it'd be a needless crisis if these SLEs can't be had as quickly as one would like.

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