[CRISP-TEAM] Call for comments from the CRISP Team Re: first draft review of the SLA v1.0

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri May 29 01:18:37 CEST 2015


As a reference for our discussions on the mailing list, please see below the points shared and dicussed at the 20th CRISP Team call on 27th May regarding Section 10 (10.1 and 10.2) of the SLA.

I attempted to add the point of views I observed but I may have unintentionally missed some points or not accurately captured some points.

Please feel free to add/make changes as appropriate, and let's continue the discussions on this mailing list.

At this stage, most CRISP Team members at the call supported the that Article 10.1 is consistent with the numbers proposal, but we still need to continue discussions on this mailing list to :

 - Confirm if there are further points to be made on the position that it is not consistent with the proposal
 - Seek if there are points that the CRISP Team members from both position consider as agreeable

We are going to share the review of the SLA by the CRISP Team on 3rd June to the global mailing list, so let's continue the discussions on the CRISP Team mailing list and seek for a position we can come up as the CRISP Team.


* Points in support of the position that Article 10.1 is not consistent with the numbers proposal (view expressed by Bill Woodcock)

  - The current description allows automatic renewal of the contract, unless either party provides makes 6 months advance notice not to renew.
  - The current NTIA contract contains a term that ends on September 30, 2015 with no mention of automatic renewal.  The US Government has historically rebids the IANA operator at every end of the contract term through standard US Government procurement procedure. Inclusion of an automatic renewal is a major change from this current situation, where the US Government of rebidding at the end of a every contract term.

  - This proposed provision It is not consistent with an effort to keep any changes to the current structure at a minimum. This is a major change from hat has been discussed with the numbers community nor the numbers proposal.
    The numbers proposal has expressed clearly the need for minimum changes. This leads to major changes from the current way of contracting with the IANA operator.

  - This change would appears to serve the interests for the ICANN as it allows them to be the IANA operator as the default, but the question has been posed as to what interests of the Numbers community are served by this automatic renewal provision.  It is not clear what interests serves for the numbers community.
  -  One advantage of bidding at every the end of the renewal each term gives RIRs an opportunity to know explore whether there is an alternate more preferable operator that can provide better service to provide its services. The cost of a rebidding process is not expected perceived to be a large amount big.

  - Calling for a rebidding when the SLA provides for defined automatic renewal, may be perceived as an would send a more explicit message that RIRs are not satisfied with the ICANN
  - Despite having the mechanism to rebid without cause, it is perceived that the RIRs and Numbers community would never exercise this option

* Points in support of the position that Article 10.1 is consistent with the numbers proposal

It would be a strong concern if as suggested, the SLA is serving the interests of the ICANN and not the numbers community, and/or inconsistent with the numbers proposal. However, it is not clear how the current SLA solely advantages ICANN or is inconsistent with the numbers proposal.

The numbers proposal has described the need for;
- In case of failure in service, the RIRs can terminate the agreement
- The RIRs can periodically review the agreement and evaluate whether they want to renew the agreement

Both of the points are covered in the by Section 10 of the draft SLA; the RIRs are able to terminate the agreement SLA in case of the a service level failure and additionally, the RIRs will be able to choose whether or not to renew the contract SLA with 6 months advance notice, even without cause.
Whether the contract is automatically renewed, or needs a rebidding is a matter of procedure on how we the RIRs/numbers community handle the contract at the end of the term.
The effect would be the same, Consistent with the CRISP proposal SLA principle on term and termination, the RIRs are still able to terminate in case of service level failure and as well as call for bidding without cause in the event they choose not to renew the SLA.

It is not clear what issues it will cause, and if the RIRs will be perceived as sending a message that they are not satisfied with the ICANN by opening rebidding of the SLA. , or any other issues with automatic renewal, given we have the choice to rebid if needed.

Further Additional points for consideration:
  - The RIR legal team has drafted the SLA based on the Numbers community proposal with a focus on remaining consistent with the Numbers community proposal. No considerations were made to reflect ICANN's interests or desires.

  - Discussion on whether the contract should be automatically renewed had been discussed on the ianaxfer list.
    It was agreed by the community to leave this decision to the RIRs on what would legally serve the interests of the RIRs and the community while remaining consistent and faithful to best legally, in line with the Numbers community proposal.

  - It is not true that providing for an automatic renewal and not requiring a rebid at the end of each term as US Government procedure requires, makes it inconsistent with the numbers proposal's desire for the minimum changes. The Numbers community proposal has expressed its the desire for the minimum "operational" changes, not minimal changes in the manner of contracting the contract to be exchanged with the NTIA today.
    A.III.1. "Taking this into account, and considering the Internet Number Community's strong desire for stability and *a minimum of operational change*,.."

  - Having automatic renewal with a choice of not to renew without cause has benefits for the Numbers community as below;
    1) Gives stability of the services, while maintaining the ability to terminate and to not renew without cause based on the Numbers community proposal
    2) Pragmatic and reasonable from a business perspective way of handling renewal while achieving the effect needed
       Rebidding has cost implications not just in terms of the fees paid but time needed for preparation and selection, consuming RIRs' human resources.  The current draft provision allows RIRs to enter into a rebid process if desired, but does not require the expenditure of resources and funds to do so if deemed unnecessary.  Given the order of magnitude of the service to be provided along with the minimal fees to be paid, it is unclear what benefit is sought to be realized by a mandatory rebid at the end of each term.
    3) It is still possible for RIRs to rebid after every each contract term if so desired. Rather than mandatory rebidding, it gives more flexibilities for the RIRs on desired choices.
    4) There is no material negative effect perceived by having this mechanism as opposed to requiring a mandatory rebid at the end of each term.


On 2015/05/28 0:55, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> CRISP Team,
> If you have any comments on the draft review of the SLAv1.0 shared by Andrei, please express on the CRISP Team ML by: Tue 2nd June UTC13:00
> Just for the record, we initially called for a volunteer from the RIR legal team who are also the CRISP Team members, to support provide legal clarity to review the SLA.
> We had no volunteer from the CRISP Team members who are in the RIR legal team. Nurani and I made the decision to leave it as it is, since this would be better from the accountability point of view.
> Below are the suggested next steps, with the core steps agreed at the 20th CRISP call, which took place a few hours ago.
>  Tue 2nd  June   Close comments from the CRISP Team on the SLA1.0 review
>  Wed 3rd  June   Share the CRISP review on the ianaxfer list and see for comments
>  Tue 9th  June   Close comments on the global list
>  Thu 11th June   Discuss handling of comments at the 21st CRISP call (in addition to ML discussions)
>  Fri 12th June   Finalize the CRISP comment by UTC13:00, submission by UTC15:00
>  Sun 14th June   Deadline of the submission (UTC23:59)
> Please also share if you have any comments on the steps described above before:  UTC16:00, Thu 28th May.
> Regards,
> Izumi
> On 2015/05/27 3:27, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>> Colleagues,
>> I attach a first draft of the analysis of the SLA for your review and
>> comments. I tried to include some of the comments from the community,
>> although I wasn't able to fit them all in. Partly, because I felt some
>> of them were outside the scope of this analysis limited to checking the
>> conformance of the SLA provisions with each of the CRISP SLA Principles.
>> Regards,
>> Andrei
>> _______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

More information about the CRISP mailing list