[registrars] FW: BOUNCE registrars@dnso.org: Non-member submission from [Miesha Vukasinovic <miesha@totalwebsolutions.com>]

["Michael D. Palage" <mpalage@infonetworks.com>]

SLA comments

-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]
Sent:	Wednesday, November 24, 1999 11:37 AM
To:	owner-registrars@dnso.org
Subject:	BOUNCE registrars@dnso.org:    Non-member submission from [Miesha
Vukasinovic <miesha@totalwebsolutions.com>]

From registrars-listadmin@dnso.dnso.org  Wed Nov 24 17:36:58 1999
Received:	from springroll.totalweb.net.uk ([195.206.161.43])
by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA05347
for <registrars@dnso.org>; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 17:36:51 +0100 (MET)
Received:	from tws7.totalweb.co.uk (tws7.totalweb.co.uk [195.206.160.138])
	by springroll.totalweb.net.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA13011
	for <registrars@dnso.org>; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 16:37:05 GMT
Message-Id:	<199911241637.QAA13011@springroll.totalweb.net.uk>
Date:	Wed, 24 Nov 1999 16:34:17 +0000
From:	Miesha Vukasinovic <miesha@totalwebsolutions.com>
Subject:	SLA
To:	<registrars@dnso.org>
	Mime-Version: 1.0
	Organization: Total Web Solutions
	X-Mailer: GoldMine [4.00.9626]
	Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
	Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
	X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dnso.dnso.org id
RAA05348

I have been looking through the SLA submitted to the list recently for
approval and I have a few points:
1.	it should be gTLD not Gtld as far as I am aware.  Minor point I know.
2.	In the Responsibilities section, para 3 it seems a bit insane to say that
if a registrar overestimates the volume of registrations then they should
not be entitled to any SLA payments.  This I feel needs clarification.  In
fact this clause is very restrictive.  It is very possible based on my
experiences that you can double the number of registrations in a month just
as a one off fluctuation in registrations.  It subsequently tends to even
out again in following months.  Granted NSI wish to protect the issue of
credit to the registrars but all told it is all purely speculative and
therefore it is unfair to penalise the registrar.
3.	In the Guarantee section, para 1 it appears that planned outages will not
be more than 12 hours in a month yet in the Definitions Section it states 4
hours per week.  Clearly there is no direct correlation between weeks and
months nor if you were to multiply the weeks by the scheduled acceptable
weekly allowance does it add upto 12.
4.	There seems to be a difference in the SLA between planned outages and
unplanned ones but I do not think this is clear.
5.	I see that the registrars credit limit is used in calculating a way of
crediting the registrar for loss of service.  I think this should just be
based on the percentages stated times by the number of registrations from
the previous month.  This way it will even itself out and won't impose
restrictions like in 2 above.
6.	In the Guarantee section, why this is in the Guarantee section I don't
know but it mentions that registrars have the ability to check the
availability of the SRS sort of like a health checker.  I agree this should
be available to registrars but needs to be defined.  Just pinging a server
to see if its alive is not acceptable we need something a bit more
sustainable and totally unbiased.  A third party product of some sort but
ideally something which is agreed in advance rather than arguing the toss
when something has gone wrong.

Apologies if there seems to be a lot of issues here but its better to speak
now I suppose.
Best regards.
Miesha Vukasinovic.

+----------------------------------------------------------+
Director of Total Web Solutions Limited.
Phone  : 0161 486 4502 Direct Dial/Fax
Switch : 0870 78 79 888
E-mail : miesha@totalweb.co.uk
+----------------------------------------------------------+