DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [registrars] SLA Update

It's bad to loose the momentum. 
Virtual Internet supports option 2)


-----Original Message-----
From: Erica Roberts [mailto:Erica.Roberts@melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 11:54 PM
To: mpalage@infonetworks.com; Registrars@Dnso.Org; Maureen E. Ruppert;
Elana Broitman
Cc: Guye Engel
Subject: RE: [registrars] SLA Update

Guye Engel (who was on the first SLA WG) will represent Melbourne-IT on
this. Please put him on the list and drop me to a 'cc' only.


-----Original Message-----
From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2000 5:30 AM
To: Maureen E. Ruppert; Erica Roberts; Registrars@Dnso.Org;
Cc: Guye Engel
Subject: Re: [registrars] SLA Update

Our tech guys are saying that (a)  the uptime numbers are too low and (b)
the allowable windows for planned and unplanned outages combined create way
too high of an outage period every month.  It needs to be a lot more robust.
This is our opportunity to ensure that the registry is providing the level
of service that we all need.  Moreover, this is precisely the time period
when we may be submitting a co-op registry proposal to ICANN.  It seems to
me that it's imperative to ensure that the current system is responsive and
robust when we're applying to manage a second system.  That's why we propose
to go with choice (b) and renegotiate the SLA at this time.

Kind regards, Elana

----- Original Message -----
From: Maureen E. Ruppert <mruppert@bulkregister.com>
To: Erica Roberts <Erica.Roberts@melbourneit.com.au>; Registrars@Dnso.Org
<registrars@dnso.org>; <mpalage@infonetworks.com>
Cc: Guye Engel <guye.engel@melbourneit.com.au>
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 9:29 PM
Subject: 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
> notice; however, I'd be interested in hearing from others what the beefs
> are.
> Maureen E. Ruppert
> Vice President
> Industry Relations
> BulkRegister.com
> -----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
> changes required to the SLA within the next couple of months.  Such
> will provide an indication of the sort of changes (if any) sought by
> Registrars and enable us to establish a negotiating position.
> erica
> -----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
> future
> (2) Create a task force in the next couple of weeks prior to the lapse
> (3) Extend the SLA for a fixed period of time, say 6 months
> Mike
> P.S. Please check NSI's performance to date with regard to the existing

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