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

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> I personally had assumed that the new SLEs would be implemented before or
> at the transition,


Perhaps we should ask the IETF of their experience when they tried updating
their SLA (which was somewhat the outcome of the IANAPLAN) during 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.


I had thought Paul's team passed the level of agreeing on the SLE
requirements with IANA no?


>   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.
>

If I may, what does testing imply? does testing in this case mean working
on the live system or creating a dummy setup or doing similar hypothetical
test case scenario like it was done within the CCWG?

Cheers!

>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151013/969a5a05/attachment-0001.html>