[CWG-RFP3] Separability

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Thanks for the response and the correction on the timing.

So the current scheme is

- Weak separability after 3 years and again after another 2 (No RFP
needed, contract renewed unless there are severe issues that cannot be
resolved)
- Strong separability after 3+2+2 (RFP required)

I believe that we need this sort of hybrid approach to continue.

I also think the open comment process the NTIA went through before the 7
year RFP should be replicated by any solution we come up with.

I.e every 7 years we go though the entire RFP process, complexity and
expenses not withstanding.

While I know the Frankfurt discussion did not get to this level, I think
anything less is an unacceptable solution and I believe that I am
expressing a view that is representative of the community I have been
selected as a member by (have bcc'ed the NCSG IANA group
<ncsg-iana at ipjustice.org>  on this as confirmation).  While we have not
settled on any particular details of a regular RFP and Separability or
the length of periods, we are quite convinced that both are required.

Thanks

avri

On 24-Nov-14 08:38, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Avri,
>
> I believe that where we currently stand (understanding that nothing has
> been decided) is that the contract will have a limited duration, and that
> the review team will have the option to put out an RFP tied to the end of
> that contract.  I believe the sense was that it would be better to allow
> the review team to exercise its discretion and judgment, rather than making
> an RFP a requirement.  Among other things, it was noted that the RFP
> process consumes significant amounts of time, money and resources
> (including human resources) for all parties, and that such a process should
> only take place if the circumstances warranted it.
>
> The length of the contract's duration did not receive as much specific
> attention.  That said, my personal belief is that changing the term from
> that in the current contract will require justification (i.e., more
> justification than keeping it as it is) (also, I believe it is currently 3
> years, with two 2 year options).
>
> This discussion may have started because the "flow chart" did not
> explicitly mention the contract or its duration.  This was because the flow
> chart was intended to demonstrate the groups tentatively proposed to
> replace the NTIA's roles, and was not intended to summarize the whole of
> the potential proposal.
>
> I hope this helps clarify these points.
>
> Greg
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> While I wasn't at Frankfurt, I had gotten the impression that there had
>> been a strong notion of separability as one of the objects of the contract
>> review process.  That is, that upon review, if there was the full
>> possibility that that the contract could be given to another operator.  The
>> discussion I am seeing now gives me the impression that perhaps this goal
>> is weakening.  This greatly concerns me.
>>
>> I think separability MUST remain a very strong actual possibility.
>>
>> I see two ways this can happen:
>>
>>
>> 1. Strong separability: every n (n= 2-7?) years a new RFP is released and
>> all comers, current contract holder included, apply for the IANA contract
>> and the best candidate is picked.
>>
>> 2. Weak seperability: every n (n=2-7?) years a review of the current
>> contract holder is reviewed and the review committee has the option to put
>> out an RFP for the IANA contract if there are unresolved issues.
>>
>> I have a preference for strong separability.
>>
>> The current NTIA contract includes both of these:
>>
>> - the seven year contract cycle is strong separability
>> - the renewal after 4 years is weak separability.
>>
>> I favor a solution that gives us the same degree of separability we
>> currently have under the NTIA contract going forward, and my remote
>> impression of the Frankfurt talks was that this is the way we are headed
>> though we still had details to work out.
>>
>> Can anyone confirm this?
>>
>> avri
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
>> Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141124/57f07e81/attachment.html>