I believe the scenarios you are outlining are certainly possible. I don't (personally) believe that we can write rules or process steps to make them impossible. I also am concsiously saying "possible" without any prejudice about "likelihood". That is -- I have no opinion about the likelihood of these possible outcomes.
Because we can not make these things impossible, the only thing we can reasonably do is apply judgement. In this case, I believe that requires having a designated human being (or small group of human beings) sit down and discuss with the parties involved. These designated folks have to apply judgement and take action based on their understanding of the situation. As I understand it, that designated person/group are: the IAD and IAOC.
That was a long-winded way of saying: these are justified concerns, but we are not as a group going to be able to prove our way out of them; even the IAD-to-be is going to have to say "in my judgement, we should do X".
So, to the earlier comment about negotiating backroom closed deals: I don't recognize anything in what has been done/is being proposed that fits that description.
My message last Friday aimed to do 3 things:
. publicize that the transition team is (nothing more than) aware of some ongoing CNRI-NeuStar negotiations
. provide a list of expected operational guidelines for secretariat services in 2005, irrespective of provider
. observe that, from informal discussions we've had so far, and given other factors (e.g., continuity), we (the transition team) can envision a future where it would be a reasonable thing to engage in a contract with NeuStar-post-CNRI-deal that would live up to those operational guidelines.
But the proof is still in the pudding: we (IETF in general, TT in particular) have not seen so much as a draft of a proposed contract for 2005 Secretariat services, from anyone. It is our anticipation that the order of operations would be:
1. a contract will be proposed, and negotiated by the IAD 2. if such negotiations lead to a final contract that is consistent with those guidelines (including ability to apply performance review), we have an option to pursue 3. if said negotiations do not yield such a contract, or if no such contract proposal appears reasonably soon, the IASA (on behalf of the IETF) is going to have to strike out and develop an independent RFP process if it is to meet the requirements of the BCP.
Given Bob Kahn's recent message, I think people reading this list will understand that there would likely be resistance from CNRI to point #3.
I personally believe we *all* benefit from making #2 work (including the requirement that the contract moves us beyond where we have been for the last N years with Secretariat, and is in line with what the IASA is supposed to be about).
But we are still talking about work that *will* have to be done (negotiating) -- there are no secrets to be exposed from backrooms in terms of deals cut already. At least, not that I am aware of!
Leslie.
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 17:04 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John writes:
... snip a lot ..
I'd rather either
* 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 * Bury the BCP, at least in its present form, until we are really ready to move forward with its provisions.
The first of those options would, of course, respond to my question about how the community authorizes this type of deal: we examine the principles and give the IAOC the authority to do it.
It seems to me that we (as IETF community) have no formal control at all over what CNRI/Fortec do. So why would we as a community have (or need) any say over what CNRI/Neustar do?
All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we
still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts
to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start.
During that process, we are still subject to whatever CNRI/Foretec/Neustar do, are we not?
Absolutely. But there have been several suggestions that Neustar wants a guarantee of a year or two _from the IETF_ for them (and Foretec) to keep the secretariat for them to go ahead with the deal. If they get that guarantee from somewhere, the RFP preparation process is either moot or at least hugely dragged out.
In principle, they might alternately get a guarantee from CNRI to fight any attempt to move the secretariat elsewhere with every tool, IPR claim, etc., at CNRI's disposal. Or they might guarantee CRNI that they would do so as a condition the deal and permission to use the claimed IPR. Any such guarantee would not involve the IETF either, but it might pretty thoroughly cripple any attempt to implement the BCP as it stands (or will stand soon).
john
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf