[CRISP-TEAM] Draft comment to the CWG proposal

Andrei Robachevsky robachevsky at isoc.org
Mon May 18 11:07:12 CEST 2015

Izumi Okutani wrote on 18/05/15 09:32:
> On 2015/05/18 14:55, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>> On May 18, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at netnod.se>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 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."
> I see your point Bill as I expressed my previous e-mail. I assume
> what Nurani was saing that it is not contradictory to the intention
> and the spirit but I agree with you it is not clearly described in
> the curent SLA that way.
> Would it be agreeable to describe it as the intention of how we would
> expect to be implemented? (while this may not be clearly stated so in
> the curent SLA draft)?
> Any objections/concerns to go in this direction?

I think this is the way to go. In fact, the message in this section of
our response is unclear. I guess we are trying to say that we want to
pay for the number services as a customer and only on a cost-recovery
basis, and therefore we do not need to be involved in the budget
discussions, but this has to be better articulated.

I also attach the doc with a few minor comments.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CRISP feedback CWG-02BW-NN-IO-AMR.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 44032 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150518/0ac39d81/CRISPfeedbackCWG-02BW-NN-IO-AMR.doc>

More information about the CRISP mailing list