--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 11:02 -0500 Margaret Wasserman
> At 10:13 AM -0500 1/26/05, John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi John,
>> The situation you fear doesn't change at all. The draft
>> doesn't give the IAOC any authority to accept an unsolicited
>> proposal in the absence of an IAD-created, IAOC-approved, RFP
>> and at least the potential for competitive proposals against
>> that RFP.
> What gives you this impression? The current IASA BCP doesn't
> include the term "RFP", nor does it require any public bidding
> process or specify any opportunity for the public to comment
> on potential contractors before contracts are signed. The
> "transparency and openness" portions of the BCP are all
> after-the-fact -- financial reporting, making the contracts or
> MOUs public, publishing decisions after they are made (with no
> time constraints), etc. When combined with the fact that we
> don't apparently have consensus that the community needs any
> way to review/appeal a decision of the IAOC, the document
> currently gives the IAOC full, unchecked control over the
> structure of IASA and how that work is contracted.
> So, IMO, if we pass the BCP as-is, the IAOC would have the
> authority to contract with Neustar to provide all of the
> current IETF secretariat services. and they could probably get
> away without telling us about the decision until after a
> binding commitment letter is signed.
I just went back and looked at the text, and it appears, to my
chagrin, that after weeks of discussion about "preferred
outsourcing" and "RFP-based processes", we have "improved" the
language sufficiently to not prevent, even in principle, private
and secret dealings leading to contracts that cannot be un-done
without any opportunity for meaningful community input either
before or after the fact. Perhaps we need to fix that :-(
> Personally, I am stunned by the idea that after years of
> complaining about our IT infrastructure, including the
> creation of a special mailing list for the IESG to collect
> details of our IT problems so that we could build a case to
> change providers, the IASA TT would even consider recommending
> a multi-year contract to continue receiving IT services
> (e-mail and web support) from the same provider. But, I
> haven't figured out if there is any forum in which I could
> constructively voice my surprise...
It seems to me that you are a member of the community, and that
you have just found the appropriate forum. My understanding
from Harald's note and other conversations is that, if Neustar
understands that this idea creates a bad smell around the
community, they won't go through with the deal. And, if you
believe that the TT's considering this idea constitutes actual
bad behavior or incompetence rather than simple poor judgment,
you know how to fill out recall petitions.
>> potential for CNRI to try to block an ISOC-based IAOC is
>> unchanged. The issues about review or appeals, who can
>> initiate them, and what they can change, that Sam, Avri, and
>> others have been discussing with Mike, myself, and others are
>> likely to be resolved by "no one at all in any meaningful way
>> until the initial term of the 'arrangement' expires", a
>> situation that I'm sure none of those who have been involved
>> in that discussion would find acceptable.
> I certainly wouldn't find this acceptable.
Of course, if Neustar agrees to whatever provisions are in the
BCP, and whatever details about those provisions that the IAOC
specifies, and is able to do so --which Harald's note indicates
they are prepared to do-- then this should not be an issue.
>> * Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give
>> the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited,
>> sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that
>> seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do
>> not fufill some of the principles of the BCP itself or
> I don't see anything in the current BCP that prevents this, or
> even discourages it.
Ietf mailing list