[CWG-RFP3] Seperabilty

[Seun Ojedeji]

Great and useful experience shared. There is however 2 important
characteristics at your end that is currently missing in the single option
that we discussed in Frankfurt:

- The composition of the review team is yet to be defined. (it is not
enough to call it  multistakeholder, the main devil is in it's details)

- Your contracting entity is a single un-capturable and legitimate body
with enough resources to sustain itself. We currently don't have details of
how the new entity will poses such feature... again the devil will be in
the details.

When those 2 items are clarified then a contracting path can be effectively
considered as an option. Issue of whether to have RFP or have an extended
no of years are  cosmetic improvements that can always be determined
depending on how much resources is available to spend on them.

The NTIA was not in-sensitive by awarding the contract to ICANN (even
though it issued an RFP).

Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 24 Nov 2014 15:42, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:

>  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_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>
> 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 listCwg-rfp3 at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
>
>
> --
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: 01 39 30 83 06mathieu.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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141124/7cf74682/attachment-0001.html>