[CWG-RFP3] Seperabilty

[Seun Ojedeji]

Dear All,

Just to reiterate again that in my personal view; RFP and duration of
contract is a feature that can be determined/decided at any point in time
in this transition process. The details of the contracting body is what
needs to be first determined before RFP or contract duration is integrated
with it. The nature and composition of the contracting entity will
ultimately help understand what to expect in future which will help decide
on the other elements including whether their is need for RFP or duration
of contract.

We need to remember that this is no longer going to be a body with NTIA
characteristics which is immune to a lot of external forces/attacks....so
looking to have features similar to NTIA processes when the actor does not
have the characteristics of NTIA seem to me like creating a new fish bone
that will get stuck in our throat.

Regards




On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com> wrote:

> There was some very sound reasoning in the Frankfurt discussions against
> an RFP being issued in September 2015. Such reasoning said that in case a
> new IANA operator is selected as a result of the RFP in Sept 2015, both the
> oversight body and the IANA operator would be completely new at the same
> time, which could possibly lead to operational instability. I tend to agree
> with such logic.
>
> In order to deal with this transition, maybe we can suggest that the new
> contracting entity have the initial contract with ICANN as the IANA
> operator for the first two years without an RFP. In this two year period,
> the periodic review team would have sufficient time to establish itself and
> smoothen the procedural details. After this two year period, the periodic
> review team should initiate a RFP based on a periodic cycle, with the
> option of one extension (3+2) at the discretion of the periodic review
> team. After this 5 year period, the periodic review team must initiate a
> mandatory RFP.
>
> This 5 year period seems like a safe investment cycle from the experience
> that Mathieu shares. If a case for larger investment cycles is made, we
> could consider the option of two extensions (3+2+2=7).
>
> I hope something similar can be agreed upon and we move towards a
> compromise.
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 25-Nov-14 14:42, Guru Acharya wrote:
>>
>> 1) That there is no need for an RFP in September 2015 when the current
>> contract term ends.
>>
>>
>> Note, I also do not think that there is the need for an RFP in 2015.
>> I do not think that would contribute to stability or quality of
>> performance.
>>
>>  2) That there is no need for an RFP that is periodic.
>>
>>
>> While I do believe there is a need to a periodic one.
>> I think the first can be 3-9 years hence.
>> 9 seems long, 3 might be short.
>> 6 might be in  compromise range.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141125/4ec55fb8/attachment-0001.html>