[CRISP-TEAM] Suggested Text - III.A.3. Service level agreement (Budget Review)

[Izumi Okutani]

CRISP Team,


I welcome your feedback for the suggested text for contract fees, to 
address a comment about the budget review.

This is proposed to be added in IANA Agreement Principles.

I would especially appreciate double checking whether I quoted relevent 
section of the IANA contract.



IANA Agreement Principles
----
xi. Contract Fee

Principle:
Appropriate Fee for the contract, in delegating the IANA operation for 
the number resources function from the RIRs to the IANA operator, should 
be discussed between the two parties, based on the review of the current 
contract fee and the need for cost recovery.

Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:

B.1 CONTRACT TYPE
(a) This is a cost contract.
(b) In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.302(a), a 
cost contract is a cost-reimbursement contract in which the
contractor receives no fee.
(c) The cost principles established in the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Circular A-122 shall apply to this contract. OMB Circular
A-122 may be retrieved from the following url:
  www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a122/a122.html
(d) The requirements identified in the statement of work shall be 
performed by the Contractor at no cost to the United States Government. 
If the Contractor intends on establishing and collecting fees from third 
parties (i.e., other than the Government) for the functions performed 
under this contract, the Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer 
in writing at least sixty days prior to the fee being applied and 
provide documentation which identifies the rationale for the fee, the 
parties to be charged, and the cost basis for the fee in accordance with 
OMB Circular A-122 and FAR clause 52.215-2, Audit and Records – 
Negotiations, Alternate II. The Contracting Officer shall approve any 
fee in writing prior to the Contractor imposing the fee.
At the time of purchase order award, the estimated value of this 
purchase order is less than $10,000.
----


Thanks,
Izumi

On 2015/01/13 1:44, Izumi Okutani wrote:
 >Re: ver.2 Re: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team position per issues discussed
 > at the 11th call Re: Summary of Discussions point for each issue
 >
> Thank you very much  Andrei for pointing this out.
>
>>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> e. Budget Review
>>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (snip)
>> In my understanding while we agreed not to address the budget review
>> directly, we agreed to include a new principle stating that the contract
>> fee will be based on cost recovery.
>>
>> Inclusion of this principle will also imply that the current
>> contribution is outside the scope of the proposed agreement and its fee
>> will be negotiated separately. It will also addresse the question of
>> budget review, if considered together with the principle vii. Term and
>> Termination (RIRs will be able to periodically review the agreement and
>> evaluate whether they want to renew the agreement.).
>
>
> Your understanding is indeed correct.
>
>
> Here is the updated version of the summary conclusion below
>
> I had the same understanding in my head but wrote the wrong conclusion.
> I probably need some sleep shortly :).
>
> Many thanks for your clarification on this point.
>
>
> Izumi
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Summary of actions:
>
> * Text suggestions neeed
>    a. Dispute Resolution: Andrei
>    b. Details of the SLA (Richard Hill's point covered by Andrei's text
>       for a. No other coments need text changes)
>    d. Selection of Review Committee: shared by Izumi already
>       (See relevant section below)
>    e. Budget Review: Izumi
>
> * CRISP Team volunteer to explain on the IANAXFER list
>    (other than Izumi)
>
>   c. Mou/contract + necessicy of the contract: Craig (done)
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> a. Dispute Resolution
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Richard Hill)
> Speficying a place of jurisdiction:
>     (1) the community should give some guidance and
>     (2) the community should have the opportunity to comment
>         on whatever the RIR legal team comes up with.
>
>    [CRISP Team postion]
>     Will add description in the final proposal to the ICG that the SLA
>     document will be consulted to the relevant community.
>
>    [CRISP Team volunteer for text suggestion]
>     Andrei will work on drafting the suggested text.
>     This should cover the entire SLA not just the juridiction part.
>
> (Richard Hill)
> Dispute resolution:
>    [CRISP Team postion]
>     Will not make text changes from the second draft below:
>
>     "x. Resolution of Disputes
>
>      Principle:
>
>      Disputes between the parties related to the SLA will be resolved
>      through arbitration.
>      Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:
>      N/A"
>
>     Reason:
>      The CRISP Team is not leagal expert. It is not appropriate to
>      sugest a concrete arbitration mechanism at this stage and narrow an
>      implementation option with sufficient expertise knowldege.
>      It is premature to judge we apply the same arbitration mechanism as
>      in the existing MoU, and there was disagreement/concern about the
>      use of the word "neutral". There is likely to be more appropriate
>      legal word to use, to capture this point.
>
>    [CRISP Team volunteer to explain on the IANAXFER list]
>    - Izumi Okutani
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> b. Details of the SLA
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Richard Hill)
>     - A preference is that the draft text be contained in the proposal
>       submitted. OR
>     - As an alternative, he could accept some mechanism whereby the
>       community, including this list, is asked to comment, at a later
>       stage, on the text of the contract/SLA.
> (Jim Reid)
>     - skeptical about the practicality of a single contract between the
>       IANA operator and 5 RIRs in a post NTIA world.
>
>    [CRISP Team postion]
>     - Richard Hill's point is partially addressed by the community
>       consultation of SLA as decribed in a. "Speficying a place of
>       jurisdiction", to be drafted by Andrei
>     - Same for Jim Reid's point.
>
>
>    [CRISP Team volunteer to explain on the IANAXFER list]
>    - Izumi Okutani
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> c. Mou/contract + necessicy of the contract
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (Pinwar Wong and  Seun Ojedeji)
>    - Not sure if the contract is the best available option than MoU, for
>      example
>
>    [CRISP Team postion]
>    - The contract is the best option for its legal bindings and to
>      replace the IANA-NTIA contract
>    - No changes in the proposal text
>
>    [CRISP Team volunteer to explain on the IANAXFER list]
>    - Craig Ng
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> d. Selection of Review Committee
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (Seun Ojedeji)
> Making the suggestion below:
>
>      - uniforum membership requirement
>      - uniform selection process
>
>    [CRISP Team postion]
>   - Selection requirements should be left to indivisual RIR region, as
>     what is considered to be most appropriate for that region
>     (rather than one size fits all approach)
>   - There should be equal representation from each RIR region
>
>    [CRISP Team volunteer for text suggestion]
>   - Izumi has sent the text suggestion to the CRISP ML
>
> [Currently suggested text]
>   ---
>   The selection of the Review Committe members should be conducted in an
>   open, bottom up and inclusive mechanims, appropriate for each RIR
>   region. There should be equal representation from from each RIR region
>   inconstituting the Review Committee.
>   ---
>
>
> (Seun Ojedeji/Alan Barrett)
>   Use of the word NRO:
>      - Should it be replaced with RIRs?
>
>    [CRISP Team postion]
>     - Use the word RIRs for Review Committee Section
>     - Desirable to do the same in other sections for consistency but
>       need to check with the context of each sentence.
>
>    [CRISP Team volunteer for text suggestion]
>     - Alan
>       (list all the parts which uses the word NRO and suggest an
>        alternative if needed)
>
> (Jim Reid)
>   - Probably needs to be wider than just those drawn from the RIR
>      communities.
>   - IANA and possibly the IETF's interests should be represented in this
>      committee too.
>
>
>    [CRISP Team postion]
>    - Disagree with the suggestion, as this is the Review Committtee,
>      only for the number resources function which doesn't need
>      coordination with other functions.
>
>    [CRISP Team volunteer to explain on the IANAXFER list]
>    - Izumi Okutani
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> e. Budget Review
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (Seun Ojedeji)
>   - There is no section talking about budget review in the second
>     draft.
>   - I understand 800k+USD is contributed annually to ICANN by all
>     RIRs, may I know if ICANN presents annual budget specifically for
>     this contribution? If yes who does the review? If no then I suggest
>     it be incorporated in our proposal and I think it's something NRO NC
>     can do
>
>    [CRISP Team postion]
>   - John Curran has provided explanation of the situation today
>   - Contribution to ICANN as and organization and fees for IANA operator
>     conract is a different element which shoud be understood seperately
>   - Explain this is an issue to be discussed between RIRs and IANA
>     function operator with consideration to factor such as covering the
>     cost
>
>    [CRISP Team volunteer for text suggestion]
>    - Izumi Okutani
>
>    [CRISP Team volunteer to explain on the IANAXFER list]
>    - Izumi Okutani
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2015/01/13 1:28, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>> Thank you Izumi, for the very helpful summary!
>>
>> Izumi Okutani wrote on 12/01/15 17:08:
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> e. Budget Review
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> (Seun Ojedeji)
>>>    - There is no section talking about budget review in the second
>>>      draft.
>>>    - I understand 800k+USD is contributed annually to ICANN by all
>>>      RIRs, may I know if ICANN presents annual budget specifically for
>>>      this contribution? If yes who does the review? If no then I suggest
>>>      it be incorporated in our proposal and I think it's something NRO NC
>>>      can do
>>>
>>>     [CRISP Team postion]
>>>     - No changes wil be made to the proposal text
>>
>> In my understanding while we agreed not to address the budget review
>> directly, we agreed to include a new principle stating that the contract
>> fee will be based on cost recovery.
>>
>> Inclusion of this principle will also imply that the current
>> contribution is outside the scope of the proposed agreement and its fee
>> will be negotiated separately. It will also addresse the question of
>> budget review, if considered together with the principle vii. Term and
>> Termination (RIRs will be able to periodically review the agreement and
>> evaluate whether they want to renew the agreement.).
>>
>> Apologies if I misunderstood the outcome of this discussion.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>