[CRISP-TEAM] Draft comment to the CWG proposal
woody at pch.net
Mon May 18 15:14:42 CEST 2015
> On May 18, 2015, at 08:35, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at netnod.se> wrote:
>> On 18 maj 2015, at 09:32, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>> 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.
> Yes I agree. Thanks Izumi.
>> 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)?
> Yes, we are not the authors of the draft SLA, and my understanding is that we are commenting from the perspective of the Numbers proposal.
>> Any objections/concerns to go in this direction?
> Makes complete sense to me.
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP