Subject: RE: Progressing Re: Progress report......

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:04:30 +0100

John writes:
... snip a lot ..

> I'd rather either 
> 
> 	* Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give
> 	the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited,
> 	sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that
> 	seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do
> 	not fufill some of the principles of the BCP itself or
> 	
> 	* Bury the BCP, at least in its present form, until we
> 	are really ready to move forward with its provisions.
> 
> The first of those options would, of course, respond to my
> question about how the community authorizes this type of deal:
> we examine the principles and give the IAOC the authority to do
> it.
> 

It seems to me that we (as IETF community) have no formal control
at all over what CNRI/Fortec do. So why would we as a community 
have (or need) any say over what CNRI/Neustar do?

All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we
still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts
to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start.
During that process, we are still subject to whatever 
CNRI/Foretec/Neustar do, are we not?

Bert
> regards,
>      john

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:22:28 +0100

Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
...
> CNRI/Foretec/Neustar do, are we not?

That depends. If Neustar is prepared to negotiate a single source
contract of limited duration, then it's the terms of that
contract that both sides are subject too.

    Brian

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:26:45 -0500 (EST)

> to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start.

the "prepare for RFPs" seems futile (or at least *very* premature)
if NeuStar is to get a N-year agreement/contract

I agree with John that we need to figure out if the BCP as-is is all that
useful in the face of what appears to be a done deal

Scott

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:16:27 -0500

--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 17:04 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert
(Bert)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> we examine the principles and give the IAOC the authority to
>> do it.
>> 
> 
> It seems to me that we (as IETF community) have no formal
> control at all over what CNRI/Fortec do. So why would we as a
> community  have (or need) any say over what CNRI/Neustar do?
> 

Absolutely.  But there have been several suggestions that
Neustar wants a guarantee of a year or two _from the IETF_ for
them (and Foretec) to keep the secretariat for them to go ahead
with the deal.  If they get that guarantee from somewhere, the
RFP preparation process is either moot or at least hugely
dragged out.

In principle, they might alternately get a guarantee from CNRI
to fight any attempt to move the secretariat elsewhere with
every tool, IPR claim, etc., at CNRI's disposal.  Or they might
guarantee CRNI that they would do so as a condition the deal and
permission to use the claimed IPR.  Any such guarantee would not
involve the IETF either, but it might pretty thoroughly cripple
any attempt to implement the BCP as it stands (or will stand
soon).

    john

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:55:13 -0500

I believe the scenarios you are outlining are certainly
possible.  I don't (personally) believe that we can write
rules or process steps to make them impossible.  I also
am concsiously saying "possible" without any prejudice
about "likelihood".   That is -- I have no opinion about
the likelihood of these possible outcomes.

Because we can not make these things impossible, the only
thing we can reasonably do is apply judgement.  In this
case, I believe that requires having a designated human
being (or small group of human beings) sit down and discuss
with the parties involved.  These designated folks have
to apply judgement and take action based on their
understanding of the situation.  As I understand it,
that designated person/group are:  the IAD and IAOC.

That was a long-winded way of saying:  these are justified
concerns, but we are not as a group going to be able to
prove our way out of them; even the IAD-to-be is going
to have to say "in my judgement, we should do X".

So, to the earlier comment about negotiating backroom
closed deals: I don't recognize anything in what has
been done/is being proposed that fits that description.

My message last Friday aimed to do 3 things:

	. publicize that the transition team is (nothing
	  more than) aware of some ongoing CNRI-NeuStar negotiations

	. provide a list of expected operational guidelines
  	  for secretariat services in 2005, irrespective
	  of provider

	. observe that, from informal discussions we've
	  had so far, and given other factors (e.g.,
	  continuity), we (the transition team) can envision a
	  future where it would be a reasonable thing to
	  engage in a contract with NeuStar-post-CNRI-deal
	  that would live up to those operational guidelines.

But the proof is still in the pudding:  we (IETF in general,
TT in particular) have not seen so much as a draft of a
proposed contract for 2005 Secretariat services, from anyone.
It is our anticipation that the order of operations would be:

	1. a contract will be proposed, and negotiated by
	   the IAD
	2. if such negotiations lead to a final contract that
	   is consistent with those guidelines (including
	   ability to apply performance review), we have
	   an option to pursue
	3. if said negotiations do not yield such a contract,
	   or if no such contract proposal appears reasonably
	   soon,  the IASA (on behalf of the IETF) is going to
	   have to strike out and develop an independent RFP
	   process if it is to meet the requirements of the BCP.

Given Bob Kahn's recent message, I think people reading this
list will understand that there would likely be resistance
from CNRI to point #3.

I personally believe we *all* benefit from making #2 work (including
the requirement that the contract moves us beyond where we
have been for the last N years with Secretariat, and is
in line with what the IASA is supposed to be about).

But we are still talking about work that *will* have to be
done (negotiating) -- there are no secrets to be exposed
from backrooms in terms of deals cut already.  At least, not
that I am aware of!

Leslie.