Page History
Attendees:
Members: Wanawit Ahkuputra; Jaap Akkerhuis; Donna Austin; Avri Doria; Graeme Bunton; Olivier Crepin-Leblond; Eduardo Diaz; Lise Fuhr; Robert Guerra; Erick Iriarte; Staffan Jonson; Paul Kane; Elise Lindeberg; Vika Mpisane; Seun Ojedeji; Jonathan Robinson; Greg Shatan
Participants: Guru Acharya; Martin Boyle; Keith Davidson; Stephanie Duchesneau; Amr Elsadr; Lars-Erik Forsberg; Alan Greenberg; Malcolm Hutty; Boyoung Kim; Stacey King; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Allan MacGillivray; Camino Manjon-Sierra; Desiree Miloshevic; Sivasubramanian Muthusamy; Minjung Park; Kurt Pritz; Jorg Schweiger; Matthew Shears; Maarten Simon; Mary Uduma; Peter Van Roste; Jiankang Yao.
Staff: Grace Abuhamad; Bart Boswinkel; Berry Cobb; Marika Konings; Jim Trengrove; Bernard Turcotte; Theresa Swinehart
Apologies: Chuck Gomes; Fatima Cambronero
**Please let Grace know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
...
Notes & Action Items
Four critical functions - now broken down in a table
Agenda slightly adjusted to focus on RFP3
Focus on Table
- Table is broken down in four parts, following the
- Functions.
- Question Retain or remove
- Charecteristics
- Addtional question: who are relevant parties (customers or partners)
- Who should be involved in what capacity
- Minimum scope to achieve
- Suggestion to prioritize most important characteristics in order, highest priority on the top
Minimal scope charecteristic priority 1
Revisit Performance review Function 2 (Performance review)
Characteristics
- Technical expertise
- Community already reviews report, if reports not produced in time, community will make its views heard
- Disagree with technical expertice, more then just technical.
- Not just technical reviews of just technical thing -> multi-stakeholder input
Periodic review
Transactional review
Performance review
Reports are already produced under current contract.
Evolution of reporting, additional reports -> multistakeholder
Key role: enabling the communication to ensure coherence of reports, engage with community to ensure comfort level of community
- Characteristic that needs to go in ability to escalate
- Reminder, what is currently done, what needs to be done
- Escalation method need to be ensured -> somebody needs to keep track in formal way.
- Not just tehnical experice, but also operational expertice
- Transactional review = day-to day review, based on SLA's
- Periodic review, review from to time, higher level review.
- Periodic review, every 5 years?
Observation: persistent failure to meet operations performance targets -> escalation
What is period in periodic review?
One year, five year?
Suggestion, following the chat, delete second row?
Is already done, but with need to be able to escalate.
Charestictic of transactional reveiw could be moved to scope and size.
Ultimate review is multistakeholder review
Maybe rename Periodic review to periodic audit.
square bracket in period review reamins there to ensure it is covered. Revisit to check.
Under current contract , a whole set of deliverables, each with its own time of delivary is defined. For each of these contract review and receiving ends are defined.
Which key functions are relevant to global customers of partners?
- Periodic review, relevant for both customers and partners
- Transactional, primarily global customers, except in cases of escalation (customer and globalization)
- Assist in developing and defining, primarily global customers.
- Note transactional performance review includes receiving the transaction performance reports.
- Global customers al those use IANA systems
- IANA may look at regions differently, ned to add on equal footing on the basis of geographic representation / responsibilities.
- Capture report Geographic Regions WG worth comparison and impact of different Geographic Regions .
- Customer surveys, different role then defining requirements for technical audits.
- Periodic reviews, periodic is not clear
- What is the difference between the reviews.
- Transactional review.
- Periodoc review (operational)
- Overall Performance review -> contract renewal review.
- Revisit 3 or 4 or move to other column of this table?
- Overarching functions broken into sub-functions, define characteristics and minimum scope and size->
Minimal scope purpose and size. for Function 2
- Ability to escalate, under which circumstances
- What is meant by it? Who is able to escalate, under which circumstance.
- what kind of body is body to whom issues with stats are escalated.
- Escalation path can not be designed at this stage. Normal business practice.
Suggestion of detail that may be appropriate. Output of table
Moving forward: Similar pass over contracting review
Transcript
The transcript will be posted here upon receiptis available here: MeetingF2F_Session1_20Nov.doc
Recording
The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p28vd73rk35/
The audio recording is available here: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/9a764kl5op8nahgbqkkw.mp3
Documents Presented
Functions Table Format - 19 November 2014.docx
...