[CWG-RFP3] Seperabilty

Mon Nov 24 11:50:05 UTC 2014

Thanks Mathieu,

Informed input based in experience which I found helpful.

I note that one option proposed / discussed in Frankfurt (which I don’t
think I have seen revisited in this thread so far) was the prospect of
scheduled RFPs but with the provision for some form of preferential status
for the incumbent.

I think that this is essentially similar to what you describe here:

“As far as .fr is concerned, we have a 5 year contract, with an option to
renew only once without tender.”

Jonathan

From: cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Mathieu Weill
Sent: 24 November 2014 11:42
To: cwg-rfp3 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-RFP3] Seperabilty

Dear Colleagues,

This discussion is really useful and clearly a key aspect of the proposal
for the transition. Without any pretention, I'd like to share an experience
that we have developed at Afnic on such an issue of regular tenders and how
they impact both accountability and operational stability. 

Afnic is the manager of the .fr ccTLD. French legislation indicates that the
Government appoints the .fr ccTLD manager, after a a public tender. Two RFPs
were launched, in 2009 and 2012, and we were confirmed twice. Of course we
have investigated the theory of such systems, but I can also testify from
experience of the impact. 

Here is what I can share. 

First, regarding duration of contract it is generally advised to adopt a
duration that is consistent with the investment cycle of the operations. If
you are contracting for an electrical plant, aim at 25 years but for an IT
contract, 3 to 5 years is more appropriate. What happens if the duration is
too short ? The contractor may not have time to implement changes and
improvements, it may remain focused only on the RFP process instead of
advancing operations. If it is too short ? Once the changes that are
contractually mandatory are implemented, the contractor may rely on its
laurels and wait for the next RFP. The pace of improvement may then be too
slow. 

At Afnic, contact duration is 5 years, which is consistent both with
technical investments and with implementation of some changes, which include
PDPs and technical implementation, and may take in some cases up to 2-3
years. The current contract dates from 2012 and we plan to have everything
implemented by 2015. 

Regarding IANA, investments are probably 3 to 5 years, and implementing
changes in process or policies takes between 6 to 18 months. 

Then, regarding implicit renewal or systematic tenders. I do testify from
experience that regular re-bids DO create a strong feeling of accountability
and an incentive to deliver on contractual commitments as well as operation
performance. Tenders have a cost, however, and during the "tender period",
there is so much attention given to the tender process that, while stability
of operations remains key, you don't put a lot of emphasis on improvements
;-) 

The duration of the RFP process is also quite important as during this
period there tends to be a "freeze" of operation improvements. 

As far as .fr is concerned, we have a 5 year contract, with an option to
renew only once without tender. 

I hope this helps, I am sure the CWG might find other examples out there,
within or outside our industry, and learn from these experiences, which are
quite common. There is no perfect solution though, so some kind of
compromise between stability, cost and incentives will have to be found. 

Best
Mathieu

Le 24/11/2014 10:35, Guru Acharya a écrit :

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_Session
3_20Nov.doc?version=1
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49363373/MeetingF2F_Sessio
n3_20Nov.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1416525744000&api=v2>
&modificationDate=1416525744000&api=v2

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3

_______________________________________________
Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3

-- 
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: 01 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
*****************************
ATTENTION : L'Afnic a déménagé le 31 mars 2014 !
Notre nouvelle adresse est :
Afnic - Immeuble Le Stephenson - 1, rue Stephenson - 78180
Montigny-le-Bretonneux
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141124/35ed470f/attachment-0001.html>