[CWG-RFP3] Seperabilty
Guru Acharya
gurcharya at gmail.com
Tue Nov 25 10:42:47 UTC 2014
@Greg,
I did read the detailed survey results before posting on the list and I
continue to stand by my earlier assertion that the said statistic was
quoted out of context.
While the survey is very useful in general, the questions in the survey do
not help reach any of the following conclusions:
1) That there is no need for an RFP in September 2015 when the current
contract term ends.
2) That there is no need for an RFP that is periodic.
If I have misunderstood the results of the survey, please do help explain.
I did not mean that the entire survey should be reconducted, but that
another additional survey could be conducted that addresses these specific
questions.
@Paul:
I apologise if I came across as questioning the relevance or authenticity
of the survey. I only meant to say that the survey does not address this
particular issue at hand, while it does address other very relevant issues.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Guru:
>
> Did you read the actual questions and multiple choice answers that were
> offered, before offering your opinions? They are available at the link
> provided by Paul Kane (by accessing the detailed survey results). I
> suggest that you do so. Your criticisms are quite severe, including
> suggesting a "more precise question" and you have even asked that the
> entire survey be reconducted -- yet I am fairly sure that you did not take
> the time to actually review the survey (including the question you have
> stated was not precise enough). I have generally found you to be careful
> and thoughtful on this list, whether or not I agree with your positions. I
> hope you will take the time to look at this more thoroughly. I look
> forward to your thoughts after that review, which will then carry more
> weight (at least with me).
>
>
>
> Greg Shatan
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Paul,
>>
>> I fear you may be quoting statistics out of context. I don't think the
>> survey question reflects the issue at hand. In fact, being asked about
>> status quo would actually reflect support for the current practice of RFPs
>> as followed by NTIA.
>>
>> Request you to reconduct the survey with a more precise question. Maybe
>> it will help reach a more informed position.
>> 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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141125/79378b20/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Cwg-rfp3
mailing list