[CRISP-TEAM] Draft comment to the CWG proposal

Bill Woodcock woody at pch.net
Mon May 18 08:01:00 CEST 2015

>>>> The fixed fee was always my understanding and also my reading of the draft SLA. When consulting the RIPE NCC legal counsel Athina, she confirmed this. The contract has a fixed fee that does not exceed $100.
> How so?  The SLA says:
>> 	• 5.1  Obligation to reimburse cost
>> The RIRs shall reimburse the Operator for the direct cost of the work, namely the costs necessarily and reasonably incurred in the performance of the work, and actually paid, by the Operator.
>> 	• 5.2  Maximum Reimbursement
>> Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum amount the RIRs shall reimburse the Operator pursuant to Article 5.1 above shall be One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) unless otherwise agreed to in writing by all Parties.
> Not only does it not say “fixed fee,” I see no possible interpretation of it that could yield a fixed fee.  It’s a capped direct cost contract, not a fixed fee contract.  You see the words “reimburse direct cost” and the word “maximum” correct?
> If it were a fixed fee contract, you’d see the words “fixed fee” not “direct cost.”

And to be clear, I’d _much prefer_ a negotiated fixed-fee contract for this service.  It’s just that’s not what this SLA says.  So if we want fixed-fee, we need to correct the SLA so it says that.  I think we should.  Which is what I said in the first place.


-------------- 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/20150518/8574d438/signature.asc>

More information about the CRISP mailing list