John,
attempting to take some higher-level process issues first, before answering
questions in detail:
The question Neustar asked the transition team could be roughly represented
as "If we make this deal with CNRI, will the IETF community think that we
tried to help, or be mad at us for interfering?".
It was obvious to us, as the transition team, that we could not answer that
definitely - we have no power to decide on behalf of the community. But
after listening to what Neustar had to say, we were able to say:
- We will *share* with the community our opinion that this effort could
help achieve a transition with less conflict and uncertainty than going
straight from a CNRI-provided secretariat to an open RFP process would.
- We will *recommend* to the to-be-established IASA and IAOC that if this
deal happens, they will negotiate in good faith with Neustar on a contract
for these services.
I believe both of these actions are entirely within the remit of the
transition team.
We do have something of a timing problem here - if we want our IAD to
negotiate a contract, we cannot sign a contract before we have an IAD; we
cannot hire the IAD before we have an IASA to do the hiring; we cannot
establish an IASA before we have a BCP; we cannot approve a BCP before the
text stands still.
But this event is occuring now - Neustar and CNRI are saying that it would
be an advantage in practical terms to have this deal concluded before the
March IETF. It would be very strange if we were so caught up in the
formalities of IASA establishment that nobody was able to talk to them,
look at what they are offering, and say "this appears to be helpful, thank
you for trying".
I think that's a good use of the transition team.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf