<p dir="ltr">Great and useful experience shared. There is however 2 important characteristics at your end that is currently missing in the single option that we discussed in Frankfurt:</p>
<p dir="ltr">- The composition of the review team is yet to be defined. (it is not enough to call it multistakeholder, the main devil is in it's details)</p>
<p dir="ltr">- Your contracting entity is a single un-capturable and legitimate body with enough resources to sustain itself. We currently don't have details of how the new entity will poses such feature... again the devil will be in the details.</p>
<p dir="ltr">When those 2 items are clarified then a contracting path can be effectively considered as an option. Issue of whether to have RFP or have an extended no of years are cosmetic improvements that can always be determined depending on how much resources is available to spend on them. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The NTIA was not in-sensitive by awarding the contract to ICANN (even though it issued an RFP).</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!<br>
sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 24 Nov 2014 15:42, "Mathieu Weill" <<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
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>
<br>
<div>Le 24/11/2014 10:35, Guru Acharya a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Olivier,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't agree that consensus was found on Option 2.</div>
<div>Malcolm and Matthew strongly objected to Option 2 as
reflected in the transcripts.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please read <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49363373/MeetingF2F_Session3_20Nov.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1416525744000&api=v2" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49363373/MeetingF2F_Session3_20Nov.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1416525744000&api=v2</a></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:50 PM,
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com" target="_blank">ocl@gih.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear Avri,<br>
Dear Milton,<br>
<span><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>
</span>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<br>
<div>
<div>_______________________________________________<br>
Cwg-rfp3 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Cwg-rfp3@icann.org" target="_blank">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><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
<a href="mailto:Cwg-rfp3@icann.org" target="_blank">Cwg-rfp3@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: 01 39 30 83 06
<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
*****************************
ATTENTION : L'Afnic a déménagé le 31 mars 2014 !
Notre nouvelle adresse est :
Afnic - Immeuble Le Stephenson - 1, rue Stephenson - 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux
</pre>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<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><br>
<br></blockquote></div>