[CWG-RFP3] Seperabilty

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

It is certainly not a consensus I can be part of. 
When you say this is a consensus are you indicating that the ALAC reps
are happy with this so-called consensus?

As for whether NTIA required an RFP, they did it the last time and it is
an example we should follow.

As for operation stability.  7 years is a very long time.  10 years is
an infinity.

I am personally not stuck on 7 years as the period length, but I am
stuck on a periodic RFP.



avri

On 24-Nov-14 12:20, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond 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
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141124/9f48840c/attachment.html>