[CWG-RFP3] Seperabilty

Mon Nov 24 16:03:47 UTC 2014

Who exercises the option to renew without a tender? The principal or the agent?

From: Guru Acharya [mailto:gurcharya at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:30 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr; cwg-rfp3 at icann.org; Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [CWG-RFP3] Seperabilty

What Chuck suggests appears to be a very reasonable compromise which all of us can try to move towards.
On 24 Nov 2014 20:38, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
I agree with Milton that this is very helpful.  Thanks Mathieu.

My initial reaction is that it a good compromise might be a 3-year cycle with one or two options to renew without a tender.

Chuck

From: cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 9:43 AM
To: Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>; cwg-rfp3 at icann.org<mailto:cwg-rfp3 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-RFP3] Seperabilty

Very helpful Mathieu. The tradeoffs (heightened accountability and stronger incentives to improve vs. cost of the tender) are exactly what we have been expecting, it’s just that you’ve given us a concrete data point about how that actually works. Judging from AFNIC’s record, a 5 year cycle seems to work well. One curiosity point for me, have there been competitors in the tender, or have you been the only one?

From: cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org]> On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 6:42 AM
To: cwg-rfp3 at icann.org<mailto: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_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

_______________________________________________

Cwg-rfp3 mailing list

Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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

_______________________________________________
Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org<mailto: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/20141124/0fc79d90/attachment-0001.html>