[CWG-RFP3] Seperabilty

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Dear Guru,

I'll let our Chairs decide on whether there was consensus or no
consensus, bearing in mind consensus is not unanimity.
Kind regards,

Olivier

On 24/11/2014 10:35, Guru Acharya wrote:
> Olivier,
>
> I don't agree that consensus was found on Option 2.
> Malcolm and Matthew strongly objected to Option 2 as reflected in the
> transcripts.
>
> Please
> read https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49363373/MeetingF2F_Session3_20Nov.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1416525744000&api=v2
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Avri,
>     Dear Milton,
>
>     On 24/11/2014 05:11, Avri Doria wrote:
>     > 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.
>
>     What I heard at the face to face meeting is that the directly affected
>     customers were looking for operational stability and therefore
>     preferred
>     option 2. My understanding was that consensus was found at 2
>     rather than 1.
>     Kind regards,
>
>     Olivier
>     _______________________________________________
>     Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
>     Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org <mailto:Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
>
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141124/5b3deef5/attachment.html>