Attendees:
Sub-Group Members: Adam Smith, David Conrad, Elaine Pruis, Elise Gerich, Jay Daley, Jeff Neuman, Jeffrey Eckhaus, Patricio Poblete, Paul Kane
Staff: Bart Boswinkel, Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer
Apologies:
**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**
Transcript
Recording
- The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2uhwbgm7vh/
- The audio recording is available here: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sle-27aug15-en.mp3
Agenda
1. Welcome and Roll Call.
2. Acceptance of Agenda as presented
3. Review of the PDF document
(any comments)
4. Approval of the presented document by SLE Working Group members.
5. Any other business.
Notes
Notes:
Welcome and Roll Call
Attendants as noted in list of participants
No attendees on audio only
Run through document on basis of page numbers
Agenda
No comments on agenda
Review of Document
Comments page 1: no comment
Page 2: Comments
Background section paragraph 1: editorial issue
Bernie: Document will be re-read for editorial
Jay: not-comfortable after finalising. No tidy-up (unintended consequences.)
page 3: no comments
page 4: No
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7:
Jay: Much more then assumption, it is more a definition
Move to SLE part
Question: where do you want in SLE part.
Right in the front as definition section
Proposal, include reference
Move section H to SLE part or/in addition link with Process section
Elise: Understand appears more as definitions, but where to put it?
Jeff N: Point L is definition as well point H
Reference is also earlier in document, so maybe move H and L to definition section. Also include reference to definition section later in document to definition section
Page 8:
Elise: Comment J
Include total transition in J as sentence , is out of place.
Bernie: Last part was not approved by Kim. The only part that is not agreed to.
David Conrad: it is odd to have time in assumption section. Total transaction time is also
Confused, why an emergency change not treated as non-discriminatory manner?
Patricio: allow queue jumping.
Suggestion: Any specific number go to process performance section.
Jeffrey: Split the two sentences
Jay: Should fair and non-discriminatory be replaced by first-come first serve.
Paul K : at last call discussed that this captures better practice'
Agreed
Proposal split paragraph J
First sentence remains as J
Second sentence new section K and then renumber next sections.
Move final sentence to Process Performance Section.
Elise: Total Transaction time. may create confusion
Response: this should be total IANA Transition Time
Document can only address IANA transitions
David C: supports splitting
Suggesting if only referring to queue jumping
Proposal:
Split Current J into 3
AS above
Page 9-25: No comments
Page 26:
Jeff: Following a period of successful data collection using these new metrics, but in no event more than 6 months post-transition, the community should reconvene to review the data collected along with other industry comparable and applicable data in order to formulate the actual service level expectations (i.e., the key metrics against which thresholds will be set, and against IANA will be required to adhere to in a post-transition environment)….
Words marked suggested changes by Jeff N
After the words new metrics, time commitment to get this done
Add text: with other industry ....applicable data
PAul K: Iana will be preparing to capture time stamps as experiment, to determine thresholds to populate tables
Goal: to have tested and proven SLE
Sometimes after the transition relate to industry standards
Elise: Question around in no event than 6 months post transition, what does 6 months look at? what is intended to be done?
Jeff: in 6 months after transition you should have the dat, so have build the systems . 6 months is just strawman. In order to enable the group to discuss data and together with industry dta , discuss what SLE should be.
David: For clarification,, what industry is meant ( not implied). Without scoping exercise, not comfortable committing to an arbitrary timeline
Jeff: As to industry, what is a good industry to compare to.
As to timeline, need to include realistic timeline, without timeline does not meet goal.
Bernie: relative to timeline, before committing to timeline, scoping is necessary and community was informed,. For scoping this document is requirement
CSC formally constituted group to agree SLE
Jay: nail down when data collection start, timeline Include comparison. For transition
Paul K as registry: Once document is approved, allows scoping of work, seek necessary approvals, then start collecting of data (by the end of year) and after collecting data, deteing thresholds etc. After that CSC would take over, with period review
Next steps section was intended as placeholder.
Idea of broad timeline, and point of industry standard can be included, but latter of CSC.
Elise: concern that work needs to concerned, put in plan in place, and other plans need to be put in place, but commit to timeline up-front for complete process, without done homework, no servce.
Jeff N: ICANN required commitment under new gTLD agreement, despite same arguments
Jay: Sympathize with IANA argument, however we are sometimes required to do it. We need create a situation whre responsibilities etc can be handed over.
Bernie: It was expectation that IANA was collecting all data needed. Based on this SLE could be defined. However not the case. Timing constraint a concern for CWG, co-chairs are very aware of time constraints. The CWG view is tha tmeasuring was measuring had to done, but that was done on prior approach. Now we have established what needs to be measured, the CWG should take on responsibility to connect the moving parts.
Jeff: Assumptions were IAAN was measuring. Piroritization shuld not only be done by IANA/ICANN and NTIA. Most groups want SLE in place.
CWG constituted group for their expertise
Paul K: intend is to have a reference to a timeline that needs to be addressed by CWG, Expectation is that SLE should be in place when transition occurs.
Being careful about being descriptive.
More important that SLE is in place at moment of transition
Bernie: It would be CWG and not ICANN/IANA, as proposed by Paul
Jay: The CWG only becomes only involved if not ready
This
Clarification: add language this WG,expects that SLE at in place at time/date of transition.
Avoid including timelines to achieve SLE,
Elise: Support not prescribing a timeline, If proposed language implies it allows scoping of work, it is okay
The community needs to have an operational SLE in place ( data collected, thresholds determined etc.
Proposal:
Do a high level timeline in place
Reference industry standard
Agreed
Is document including suggested changes as discussed.
Jay, Jeff A, Elaine, Jeff N , Patricio, Paul K (n all members SLEWG
Elise: agree to document
Next steps: Final version in 12 hours to group for formal approval, then send to CWG and ICG
21.17 Clousre of call
Action Items
Documents
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (8/27/2015 14:41) Welcome to the SLE-WG Meeting on 27 August @ 20:00 UTC.
Bart Boswinkel: (14:57) Hi Jay
Jay Daley: (14:57) Hi Bart
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (15:00) hi all
Jay Daley: (15:00) All gone silent for me - are you talking?
Jay Daley: (15:01) sound back
Jay Daley: (15:05) n issue
Brenda Brewer: (15:06) scroll control is on
Jeffrey Eckhaus: (15:10) Agree with Jay on this . Was about to raise that point
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:10) My only comments relate to the Next Steps section, so I will be quiet for a while :)
Jay Daley: (15:18) I agree with Elise
Patricio Poblete: (15:18) Agree with Elise
David Conrad: (15:19) cut out for me too
Jay Daley: (15:19) cut out for me too
Patricio Poblete: (15:20) Any specific target number should go to the Process Performance section
Jay Daley: (15:20) I agree with Patricio
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:23) I agree with Jeff E on the 2 separate points. I was theone who drafted it as one, but I think it is better as 2
Patricio Poblete: (15:23) The mention of emergency changes is in the sense that they can jump to the head of the queue without that being to be considered discriminatory
David Conrad: (15:23) ah, i see.
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:32) were rolling now!
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:34) Following a period of successful data collection using these new metrics, but in no event more than 6 months post-transition, the community should reconvene to review the data collected along with other industry comparable and applicable data in order to formulate the actual service level expectations (i.e., the key metrics against which thresholds will be set, and against IANA will be required to adhere to in a post-transition environment)….
Jay Daley: (15:34) I agree - important point
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:38) Whatever the group thinks is the right timeline i will go with, but the point was just to have a timeline
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:51) So Paul - youare suggesting setting these Pre-transition?
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:51) I am all for that, but it sounds like IANA doesnt want to commit to that
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:51) So I gave them an extra 6 months after transition
Jay Daley: (15:51) I would prefer a proper timeline in this document
Jay Daley: (15:51) unambiguous
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (15:52) I agree with Jay. We have not effectively done our job without setting a timeline. In theory, we are the experts on this and we should recommend the timeline
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (16:08) I am good with the proposal
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (16:08) Please let us know when this is presented to the CWG
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (16:11) thanks!
Jay Daley: (16:12) I agree - no SLE no transition
Jay Daley: (16:13) yes
Jay Daley: (16:15) no questeions from me either
elise gerich (epg): (16:16) yes - just was concerned with the long description of what must be in place - and since there is no language written
Elaine Pruis-Donuts: (16:16) congrats and good work
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (16:17) thanks all - bye
Jeff Neuman (Valideus): (16:17) Thanks for your leadership on this Paul!
Patricio Poblete: (16:17) Good bye!
Patricio Poblete: (16:17) good work!
Jeffrey Eckhaus: (16:17) Thanks everyone
