RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] revised draft of the EAC language
- To: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] revised draft of the EAC language
- From: "Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:27:16 -0700
I can support the 4 hour response time, but a "severity 1" type of expectation
can often be difficult to achieve after initial deployment. The consequence as
noted in the v5 draft is or can be structured to be quite stiff......"Failure
to respond to an EAC request will result in a transfer-undo in accordance with
Section 6 of this policy and may also result in further action by ICANN, up to
and including non-renewal or termination of accreditation."
May I suggest we build in a buffer, so-to-speak. Option 1 could be to start at
24 hours for the first 30 days, and then tighten the requirement over 90 days
down to 4 hours. Or, Option 2 might be the 4 hour window is defined as an SLO
(Service Level Objective) for the first 90 days (meaning that there is no
consequence for losing accreditation etc) and beyond the 90 day window the SLO
matures in to the formal SLA. Either method allows for some monitoring of the
service before it is fully baked contractually.
I suppose this design falls within implementation phase upon approved policy
changes if any, but my past experiences of deploying services at the tier 1
layer often fall over each other out of the gate.
Hats off to Mikey and James for the latest EAC draft!
Infinity Portals LLC
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 12:16 PM
To: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
Cc: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx List; Mike O'Connor
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] revised draft of the EAC language
Although I've discussed this with some members individually, I'd like to take
this opportunity to go on record and state that the maximum response time for
an EAC should be reduced, to 4 hours.
Many of the same procedures / staff / training investments that must be made to
support a 24 hour response, can be adapted to support a 4 hour response. And
in the cases that we are discussing (Hijackings / fraudulent transfers), the
harm to the rightful Registrant will be measured in hours, or even minutes.
I recognize that not everyone will support this position. But I would like to
poll the consensus of the WG and see if this is has any degree of support, and
would gladly write the minority / majority position depending upon the outcome.
Looking forward to our discussion tomorrow.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] revised draft of the EAC language
From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, April 18, 2011 10:09 am
To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx List" <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks Mikey and James
On 18 Apr 2011, at 16:03, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> hi all,
> here's a red-line draft of the EAC language.
> <IRTP Emergency Action Channel v5.docx>
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone 651-647-6109
> fax 866-280-2356
> web http://www.haven2.com
> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
> Google, etc.)
Mr Michele Neylon
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting:
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845