Re: [Internetgovtech] Contracts, what problems we are solving (Was: Re: Transition to the web)

[Seun Ojedeji <[e-mail]>]

Hello Eric,

Pardon me if i may have missed something, this discussion seem to be going
in the line of maintaining the IANA contract regime. If yes, then who will
be the awarder and in whose capacity/authority will the awarder be doing
that?

While i also agree that there is really noting much about IP and Protocol
(although IP process to me may need some re-dress), i am not sure the way
to handle the names is by continuing the contracting approach. There is
absolutely no need to create another layer of lobbying politics; ICANN
should be self healing and IMO, review of the role of the AC/SO backed up
with an external process to resolve conflict may be helpful.

Regards


On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 7/14/14 9:06 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>> An essential point to a legitimate contract is providing for the
>> possibility of switching to someone else.
>>
>
> The 2011 NTIA NOI and follow-on RFP proposed the IANA Functions contract
> to be awarded through a competitive bid process, and for a finite term.
>
> The subsequent contract was awarded to the sole bidder, upon re-tender,
> the incumbent contractor, for a term of three (3) years, extensible to five
> (5) years.
>
> Removing either the finiteness of the term, or the competitive process of
> bidding, really should be explained by their respective advocates, if any.
>
> Eric
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internetgovtech mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: [phone]**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>[e-mail]
<[e-mail]>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !