ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......

2005-01-26 09:16:43
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.

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...

 The
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.

        * 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.

Margaret

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>