Romeo and all, I am curious what kinds of legal restrictions would prevent publishing a contract, but that's not really important. They exist! Still... certainly there is precedent for publishing such details - for example the Verisign Cooperative Agreement with the NTIA (NCR 92-18742). If the community thinks that it is important, does it make sense to ask that future contracts be open? This would be clear to anyone responding to an RfP in advance and could avoid any restrictions. I guess that ultimately this would be something that would have to be decided by the RIPE NCC board, but I think a request could come from either the DNS or services working group. Cheers, -- Shane At 2016-10-25 09:11:21 +0200 Romeo Zwart <romeo.zwart@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
There were some questions on the list in response to my earlier message (see below). Therefore, I'd like to add some clarification.
With regard to the RfP process: we have of course followed due process, as documented in the RfP document, available to all contenders. We kept the RIPE NCC Executive Board informed throughout the entire process and would be happy to share further information with board members should the need arise.
The final contract text was reached after negotiation on contract details to make sure the agreement was fully in line with our principals and detailed requirements.
One request on the list was, in the interest of full transparency, to share the contractual details with the working group. However, legal restrictions prevent us from doing so.
I hope this addresses the questions raised and clarifies the situation. We're happy to hear more questions and feedback from the working group.
Kind regards, Romeo
On 16/10/18 10:54 , Romeo Zwart wrote:
Dear colleagues,
In July we published a Request for Proposals (RfP) for a trusted third party to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC's zones: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/2016-July/003303.html
Following our announcement, we received three final proposals by the conclusion of the process. We selected the best fitting proposal based on the technical and non-technical requirements in the RfP document.
The proposal submitted by VeriSign Sàrl (“Verisign”) was the best fit. We subsequently signed a contract with Verisign, which comes into effect before the end of this year. The contract is for the period of one year, with the intention to renew yearly. Prior to renewal, we will look at the benefits of the service and actual market situation at that time to decide on renewing the service.
We'd like to express our gratitude to all parties who submitted proposals. We look forward to working with Verisign in the future.
Regards, Romeo Zwart RIPE NCC