DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] SLA Update

What ARE peoples' issues with it, anyways?  The SLA has 4 parts:
Definitions, Responsibilities of the Parties; Credits; and Miscellaneous.
It seems to me that B(5) is kind of impractical in terms of the 30 day prior
notice; however, I'd be interested in hearing from others what the beefs

Maureen E. Ruppert
Vice President
Industry Relations

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Erica Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 8:19 PM
To: Registrars@Dnso.Org; mpalage@infonetworks.com
Cc: Guye Engel
Subject: RE: [registrars] SLA Update

M-IT support an extension for 6 months.  I suggest that we seek comments on
changes required to the SLA within the next couple of months.  Such comments
will provide an indication of the sort of changes (if any) sought by
Registrars and enable us to establish a negotiating position.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 11:53 PM
To: Registrars@Dnso.Org
Subject: [registrars] SLA Update

As some of you may recall, the Registry Service Level Agreement (SLA) that
we adopted with NSI several months ago had a sunset provision in it. This
provision was mandated by several registrars that were concerned that the
performance bar was set to low. Right now the Constituency is rather busy
with the Code of Conduct, Escrow Task Force, Whois Task Force, collective
registry bids, individual registry bids and normal operations.

Please provide feedback on the following:

(1) Let the SLA lapse and work on creating a new one at some time in the
(2) Create a task force in the next couple of weeks prior to the lapse date
(3) Extend the SLA for a fixed period of time, say 6 months


P.S. Please check NSI's performance to date with regard to the existing SLA.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>