[dns-wg] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones
Jim Reid jim at rfc1035.com
Tue Oct 18 12:27:35 CEST 2016
On 18 Oct 2016, at 11:04, Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de> wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > On 18.10.2016 11:36, Jim Reid wrote: >> The contractual terms are implementation detail and therefore out of >> scope for the WG. This also applies to the RFP and NCC’s selection >> procedure. > > what other forum you would see fit then for such kind of Q&A? Depends on the Q&A. If they’re about the NCC’s standard RFP process -- or it it has such a thing -- that’s for the NCC Services WG or maybe the GM. If the question is “was the NCC’s standard RFP mechanism followed for some DNS thing?”, that’s for this WG. If someone thinks any contract involving the NCC is unfair or unreasonable, they ask the NCC Board to look into it and report back to the GM and/or any WG the board decides is appropriate > But as a side note: how would you come to believe that the RfP and/or > contract is unfair or defective in some way, if neither one is disclosed? For starters, by how the service is performed by the chosen supplier. Or if that supplier was an unknown or had a poor reputation. Or if the losing bidders were complaining. Or (say) if Romeo tells us root server activities are being scaled back so he can pay the bills from the outsource partner. >> The WG must not and can’t (try to) micromanage the NCC’s DNS team. > > Not that I have attempted this by any means, I think. I’m glad to hear that Carsten. But I must say you gave me that impression by asking for details of the RFP and how well/poorly the bidders performed.
[ dns-wg Archives ]