[Iana-transition] [IANA-TRANSITION] LANIC UPDATE, IDEAS FOR NEW OVERSIGHT BOARD (MONC)

[Jason Schiller]

I also found this:

After further investigation, seems I am missing part of where the SLAs
are...

There was a consultation process on performance standards that occurred
from Nov 20, 2012 through Feb 28, 2013.
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-kpis-2012-11-20-en

The result of that consultation concluded that the IANA should provide a
monthly report on key performance indicators, as well as data about request
made and processed, and implementation of new global policy.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-iana-kpis-22apr13-en.pdf

The archive of those reports can be found here:
https://www.iana.org/performance/metrics
You will want section c293 for the number resources part (append #c293 to
any of the URLs in the archive to jump straight there)

There was also some discussion about an unpublished "working" document that
the IANA operators and RIRs traded back and forth.  I'm not sure if that
has any more detailed metrics then the previous documents, or the consultation
process on performance standards, its results, and monthly reports that are
currently available.  If so, maybe John Curran, Leo Vegoda, Elise Gerich,
or her predecessor can dig that up and would be willing to share it with
the CRISP team as another input?

If not, then I would point the community to the monthly metrics and ask if
what they find in c293
<https://www.iana.org/performance/metrics/20140930#c293> sufficient?  And
if not what additional metrics / data would they like to see?

___Jason

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:

> Jason wrote:
> > I understand the "real" SLAs are in this doc <
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/icann-proposal>.
>
>
> No luck there.  The relevant text to SLAs is in Part 1, of the four-part
> document, and says (four snippets excerpted):
>
> > The relationship between ICANN and the IETF is and will continue to be
> governed by a formal MoU from June 2000, published as RFC 2860. It is
> supplemented with an ICANN-IETF MoU Supplemental Agreement and includes a
> Service Level Agreement (SLA),
> >
> > ICANN will continue to meet the service level agreements documented in
> the MoU with the IETF
> >
> > ICANN entered into a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with the IETF
> Administrative Support Activity (IASA) in January 2007
> >
> > ICANN entered into an Exchange of Letters with the Number Resource
> Organization (NRO) in December 2007. The NRO performs the role of the
> > ICANN Address Supporting Organizatin (ASO). ICANN's letter to the NRO
> included an invitation to the NRO to work with ICANN to document service
> levels associated with Internet Number Resource (INR) allocation processes.
>
> There are unfortunately a bunch of ICANN-IETF MoU Supplemental
> Agreements.  These ones from 2011-2014 include an SLA for the protocol
> parameter registries:
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ietf-iana-agreement-2011-12sep11-en.pdf
>
> https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2013-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf
>
> http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf
>
> ...and this document explains the process by which this annual agreement is
> arrived at:
>
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02
>
> Any other pointers would be appreciated, and I'll chase them down.
>
>                                 -Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>
>


-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141112/100db8bf/attachment.html>