[CRISP-TEAM] Responses to GAO questions

[Bill Woodcock]

> On May 15, 2015, at 2:49 PM, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> On 2015/05/15 20:38, Mwendwa Kivuva wrote:
>> On 14 May 2015 at 18:22, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>>> The SLA provides the RIRs with the option to terminate the SLA during its
>>> term if the Operator failures to perform and, after going through
>>> arbitration, fails to remedy such failure to perform, or not to renew the
>>> SLA at the end of its term.
>>> 
>>> With regards to termination, we note that the NTIA contract provides the
>>> US government with the same reasons for termination (page 2 of the NTIA
>>> contract and sections E.2.g.1.ii and I.67.i of the NTIA contract).
>>> Additionally the NTIA contract gives the option to the US government to
>>> terminate the NTIA contract for more reasons (sections I.51 and I.52 of the
>>> NTIA contract).
>>> 
>>> Based on the above, we believe that the SLA provides fewer reasons for the
>>> termination of the SLA than the NTIA contract and thus it would not be
>>> easier to terminate and rebid the SLA.
>> 
>> On previous occasions, we had stated that failure to adhere to the SLA was
>> not the only reason for termination of the contract. Is that still the
>> position?
> 
> I have distinguished "termination within the term of the contract" and "a decision not to renew the contract after its term" as seperate issues.
> 
> In terms of the decision not to renew, this can be done without cause, given 6 months prior notice, so this still it indeed our position, consistent with the proposal. i.e. we can make a decision not to renew for reasons other than failure to adhere to the SLA.
> 
> For termination during the term of the SLA, what I have described above is restricting with cause, in case of failure to adhere to the SLA.
> This is what the current SLA draft published for community consultation describes, and in my view, it doesn't contradict with our position as we have the ability to chose the IANA operator, for reasons other than the SLA failure at the time of the contract renewal.


I’ll further summarize the summary I did for the ARIN meeting, on this topic:

1) Termination on reasonable notice
    Current USG contract allows USG to terminate “for convenience.”  No notice required, can terminate in whole or in part.
    CRISP proposal allows either party to terminate “on reasonable notice.”  Doesn’t address whole/part issue.

2) Termination on uncured SLA violation
    Current USG contract allows termination in whole or in part on uncured SLA violation, in USG’s sole estimation, plus other strong remedies.
    CRISP proposal allows termination on uncured SLA violation, after arbitration, without any of the other remedies.

3) Periodic recompete
    Current USG contract has periodic open recompetition.
    CRISP proposal was periodic open recompetition.  Draft SLA does not follow this, says instead an assumed renewal, which would be bad.

4) No implied association of the three functions under one Operator
    Current USG contract is with a single Operator, but maintains the right to unilaterally separate functions at any time, for convenience.
    CRISP proposal cannot speak for Protocols or Numbers, so implicitly preserves the right to use separate Operators.

So, we’re similar but weaker on the first two accountability measures, the third one somehow got completely lost in the SLA drafting, and that needs to be fixed urgently, and the fourth we’re good on.  In my opinion.

Others’ thoughts on the matter?

                                -Bill




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150515/04c164b9/signature.asc>