<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the response and the correction on the timing.<br>
<br>
So the current scheme is<br>
<br>
- Weak separability after 3 years and again after another 2 (No RFP
needed, contract renewed unless there are severe issues that cannot
be resolved)<br>
- Strong separability after 3+2+2 (RFP required)<br>
<br>
I believe that we need this sort of hybrid approach to continue.<br>
<br>
I also think the open comment process the NTIA went through before
the 7 year RFP should be replicated by any solution we come up with.<br>
<br>
I.e every 7 years we go though the entire RFP process, complexity
and expenses not withstanding.<br>
<br>
While I know the Frankfurt discussion did not get to this level, I
think anything less is an unacceptable solution and I believe that I
am expressing a view that is representative of the community I have
been selected as a member by (have bcc'ed the NCSG IANA group
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ncsg-iana@ipjustice.org"><ncsg-iana@ipjustice.org></a> on this as confirmation). While we
have not settled on any particular details of a regular RFP and
Separability or the length of periods, we are quite convinced that
both are required.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24-Nov-14 08:38, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTucBis7RQWacTumYen4XPi1pNCTEHQJoS4oAJhCXSY8w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Avri,
I believe that where we currently stand (understanding that nothing has
been decided) is that the contract will have a limited duration, and that
the review team will have the option to put out an RFP tied to the end of
that contract. I believe the sense was that it would be better to allow
the review team to exercise its discretion and judgment, rather than making
an RFP a requirement. Among other things, it was noted that the RFP
process consumes significant amounts of time, money and resources
(including human resources) for all parties, and that such a process should
only take place if the circumstances warranted it.
The length of the contract's duration did not receive as much specific
attention. That said, my personal belief is that changing the term from
that in the current contract will require justification (i.e., more
justification than keeping it as it is) (also, I believe it is currently 3
years, with two 2 year options).
This discussion may have started because the "flow chart" did not
explicitly mention the contract or its duration. This was because the flow
chart was intended to demonstrate the groups tentatively proposed to
replace the NTIA's roles, and was not intended to summarize the whole of
the potential proposal.
I hope this helps clarify these points.
Greg
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Avri Doria <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@acm.org"><avri@acm.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Hi,
While I wasn't at Frankfurt, I had gotten the impression that there had
been a strong notion of separability as one of the objects of the contract
review process. That is, that upon review, if there was the full
possibility that that the contract could be given to another operator. The
discussion I am seeing now gives me the impression that perhaps this goal
is weakening. This greatly concerns me.
I think separability MUST remain a very strong actual possibility.
I see two ways this can happen:
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.
I have a preference for strong separability.
The current NTIA contract includes both of these:
- the seven year contract cycle is strong separability
- the renewal after 4 years is weak separability.
I favor a solution that gives us the same degree of separability we
currently have under the NTIA contract going forward, and my remote
impression of the Frankfurt talks was that this is the way we are headed
though we still had details to work out.
Can anyone confirm this?
avri
_______________________________________________
Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Cwg-rfp3@icann.org">Cwg-rfp3@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>