<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">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?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> cwg-rfp3-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mathieu Weill<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 24, 2014 6:42 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> cwg-rfp3@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-RFP3] Seperabilty<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Dear Colleagues,<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Here is what I can share. <br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Regarding IANA, investments are probably 3 to 5 years, and implementing changes in process or policies takes between 6 to 18 months.
<br>
<br>
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 ;-)
<br>
<br>
The duration of the RFP process is also quite important as during this period there tends to be a "freeze" of operation improvements.
<br>
<br>
As far as .fr is concerned, we have a 5 year contract, with an option to renew only once without tender.
<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Best<br>
Mathieu<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Le 24/11/2014 10:35, Guru Acharya a écrit :<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Olivier, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don't agree that consensus was found on Option 2.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Malcolm and Matthew strongly objected to Option 2 as reflected in the transcripts.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please read <a href="https://community.icann.org/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</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com" target="_blank">ocl@gih.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Avri,<br>
Dear Milton,<br>
<br>
On 24/11/2014 05:11, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
> 1. Strong separability: every n (n= 2-7?) years a new RFP is released<br>
> and all comers, current contract holder included, apply for the IANA<br>
> contract and the best candidate is picked.<br>
><br>
> 2. Weak seperability: every n (n=2-7?) years a review of the current<br>
> contract holder is reviewed and the review committee has the option to<br>
> put out an RFP for the IANA contract if there are unresolved issues.<br>
<br>
What I heard at the face to face meeting is that the directly affected<br>
customers were looking for operational stability and therefore preferred<br>
option 2. My understanding was that consensus was found at 2 rather than 1.<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Cwg-rfp3 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Cwg-rfp3@icann.org">Cwg-rfp3@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Cwg-rfp3 mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Cwg-rfp3@icann.org">Cwg-rfp3@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>*****************************<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Mathieu WEILL<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>AFNIC - directeur général<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Tél: 01 39 30 83 06<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>*****************************<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>ATTENTION : L'Afnic a déménagé le 31 mars 2014 !<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Notre nouvelle adresse est :<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Afnic - Immeuble Le Stephenson - 1, rue Stephenson - 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux<o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>