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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Chuck,

Kindly find inline

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 13 Oct 2015 22:12, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> Seun,
>
>
>
> It is probably best if Paul answers your questions but I take a stab at
them below, understanding that I was not on the SLE WG.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 4:46 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] SLE update - ICANN seeks to delay SLE
Accountability reporting......
>
>
>
> 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?
>
> [Chuck Gomes] No. Most of them were not defined.
>
SO: Okay maybe I read too much meaning to Paul's mail in august:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-August/004216.html

I extract relevant parts below:

"I am delighted to attach the agreed Service Level Expectation document,
containing the specifics of what ICANN/IANA has agreed to monitor and
report..........ICANN/IANA will now plan the scope of work to implement
this SLE, operating the service in a test phase/parallel mode to start the
necessary real-world data capture."

>
>
>>
>>   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?
>
> [Chuck Gomes] I believe it meant working on a parallel system.
>
SO: Okay that would be major activity then which I don't think can be
compared to the SLA development process/requirement for numbers and IETF.

Regards
> 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-Ekiti
> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> Mobile: +2348035233535
> alt email: 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/20151014/939ab7d6/attachment-0001.html>