[CWG-RFP3] Seperabilty

Mon Nov 24 16:15:56 UTC 2014

Under the current framework, the periodic review team would take that
decision. That makes it the principal.
On 24 Nov 2014 21:33, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  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> 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] *On
> Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller
> *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 9:43 AM
> *To:* Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr; 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] *On
> Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill
> *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 6:42 AM
> *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_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 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141124/5c874b4d/attachment.html>