[NRO-IANAXFER] Contract details

Richard Hill rhill at hill-a.ch
Tue Jan 6 12:10:28 CET 2015

In my experience, contracts usually have a termination date.  In some jurisdictions, such as Switzerland, a termination date is a necessary element of a contract, that is, a perpetual contract is not legally valid (but the termination date can be specified as an event, it need not be a calendar date).

  -----Original Message-----
  From: ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net [mailto:ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net]On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji
  Sent: mardi, 6. janvier 2015 11:57
  To: Alan Barrett
  Cc: ianaxfer at nro.net
  Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Contract details

  Hello Alan,

  Coming back to you on this now that i have some time. Kindly find inset

  On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 02 Jan 2015, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

        In my personal opinion, it doesn't matter whether it's a fixed term with periodic renewal, or an indefinite term, provided there's provision for immediate termination upon breach of contract or failure to meet SLAs.

      I think there may be a difference in the 2 scenario as periodic renewal will mean initiating a process at the end of each fixed term(which could require some level of resources). As you have rightly mentioned above, providing termination conditions on the basis of SLA is what is most important, so an indefinite term similar to the MOU that established ASO would not reduce the strength of the agreement but could save us some resources.

    We discussed this in the CRISP Team teleconference today.  We think that a fixed term (with provision for periodic renewal) makes more sense for a few reasons:

  Well it depends on how we view "making sense" in this context because the NRO/ICANN MOU is not term based neither is RFC2860 and it does not in anyway diminish the possibility of achieving what you have listed below.

    - renewal should not consume much additional resources over and above
      the periodic review which will be done in any case;

  I wonder what other periodic review is refereed to here other than reviewing the SLA; could you kindly clarify the review you refer and what that will entail?

    - it makes it easier to revise the SLA from time to time;

  Well i don't agree that you need to have a term based contract to revise SLA at least(unless i missed something) the IETF SLA is revised annually to supplement the MOU

    - it makes it possible to terminate the contract for reasons other
      than breach.

  Maybe you should state the other reasons (different from the ones stated in the agreement) that will justify that having a termed based contract is ideal, otherwise i think the content of the agreement is what in important.

  In anycase, its okay if that is what achieves consensus. However, i think i should note that this community is quite matured and may not need this level of un-necessary bureaucracy; we should continue to be an example for other communities.


    --apb (Alan Barrett)

    ianaxfer mailing list
    ianaxfer at nro.net



    Seun Ojedeji,
    Federal University Oye-Ekiti
    web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
    Mobile: +2348035233535
    alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng

      The key to understanding is humility - my view !

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/attachments/20150106/1c3319eb/attachment.html>

More information about the ianaxfer mailing list