[CWG-Stewardship] SLE - Document - following the CWG call yesterday.

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi,

I think referring to the ccNSO may be better (considering they are the ones
who made such condition in their approval), although I expect they are part
of this CWG and as such have the document. Nevertheless, there is merit in
formerly addressing it to them.

Other operational communities don't have their SLA included in their
proposal as well so the names in that sense is not in a unique situation. I
expect ICG will get back to the communities if the SLA/SLE is determined to
be required before onward transition to NTIA (through ICANN board).

Overall I think it's a good thing that the document ready for transition to
ICG anytime requested and I think considering the relevance the document
carries, it may be good to have a formal acceptance of the entire
chartering organisation.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 10 Sep 2015 06:11, "Keith Davidson" <keith at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

> Thanks Paul for the updated version.
>
> Unfortunately I will not be on the CWG call this week, but I am happy with
> the amended SLE's.
>
> On last weeks call, I was on a particularly bad connection, and asked a
> question which I don't think our Chair fully understood, and his reply was
> not particularly clear - so I would like to raise the question here for
> discussion by others on the call - the question is:
>
> "There were a number of ccTLDs who approved the Names Proposal at ICANN
> BA, on the proviso that the SLE's will be included as part of the IANA
> Transition Plan. With the likelihood the SLE's will be approved on this
> call, how can the CWG be sure the SLE's will be accepted by the ICG as an
> addition to the Transition Plan?"
>
> My reason for the question is that the ICG cannot make this document
> "materialise" into its documentation, so it requires some form of formal
> submission to receive it. The CWG (or the SLE sub-group of CWG) could
> submit the SLE document to the ICG as part of the "just closed"
> consultation round, as the ICG have stated they will still receive
> submissions for another day or two. Or the CWG could refer the SLE document
> to the ccNSO which could then discuss and vote on accepting, which would
> likely be done at the Dublin meeting (which would be an unnecessary delay
> imho).
>
> I do hope this can be easily resolved on the call, and that somehow we can
> formally submit the SLEs for inclusion by the ICG as early as possible.
>
> Cheers
>
> Keith
>
>
> On 5/09/2015 3:49 a.m., Paul M Kane - CWG wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> Thank you for the positive comments yesterday during our call concerning
>> the
>> IANA Server Level Expectation document.
>>
>> As requested, I have updated the document to reflect the comments raised
>> (red-lined)..
>>
>> A clean version of this document (Rev1) I hope the CWG will formally
>> ratify next
>> wee (on our 10th Sept call).
>>
>> I would also like to thank Bernie for taking us all through the document
>> and for
>> checking the requested (Rev1) updates.
>>
>> Have a good w/end all
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150910/b12c5bc7/attachment.html>