[CWG-RFP3] Seperabilty
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Nov 25 03:31:04 UTC 2014
Seun,
There is no reference to "status-quo" -- again, I suggest that you read the
survey itself before you attempt to draw conclusions from it.
What is the "atlarge iana-issue" you refer to?
Thanks!
Greg Shatan
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 25 Nov 2014 06:33, "Guru Acharya" <gurcharya at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Paul,
> >. In fact, being asked about status quo would actually reflect support
> for the current practice of RFPs as followed by NTIA.
> >
> Speaking about status-quo could also mean characteristics of current
> contractor is maintained which IMO makes all the difference in this
> transition process.
>
> > Request you to reconduct the survey with a more precise question. Maybe
> it will help reach a more informed position.
> >
> Speaking about survey, the atlarge iana-issue also has some clear outcome
> expectation and may want to be considered.
>
> Cheers!
>
> > On 25 Nov 2014 01:35, "Paul M Kane" <Paul.Kane at icb.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Milton
> >>
> >> We in the ccTLD community are very satisfied with the quality of
> service currently provided by IANA so we would see no immediate need to RFP
> the service for this reason. In the recent survey, 95.6% wanted to keep the
> status quo.
> >>
> >> On the question of ‘separablity’, as I see it there are two main
> reasons to issue an RFP: i) dissatisfaction with the service currently
> being provided and ii) to seek to discipline the price of the service –
> e.g. try to get it cheaper. On the question of price, as you know, this is
> currently a zero dollar contract, so you can’t get it for less money than
> that!
> >>
> >> To be credible, any RFP would need to carry with it the real
> possibility of the contract being moved to another supplier. Proceeding
> with an RFP would therefore likely require the contracting entity have
> funding to pay for the services. While some have suggested that the
> registries could easily pay for this, for the ccTLD community this could be
> problematic as the vast majority of ccTLDs have no contract with ICANN in
> respect of financial contributions, nor do they want contracts. Requiring
> them to contribute to the financing of a new entity to contract for IANA
> services would be, at best, difficult to negotiate and implement, or, at
> worst, impossible to achieve. While I do believe that the authority to
> issue an RFP should remain an option, making it an explicit requirement as
> part of any transition would be problematic from a ccTLD perspective.
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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.icannorg/download/attachments/49363373/MeetingF2F_Session3_20Nov.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1416525744000&api=v2
> >>> <
> 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
> >>> 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141124/ca624d18/attachment.html>
More information about the Cwg-rfp3
mailing list