> On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:09, Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs...@schiefner.de> wrote:
> in the light of transparency, will resp. can the contract be disclosed?
> If not, is it a contract (draft) that has been put on the table by the
> NCC? Or, vice versa, VeriSign's standard contract for such services? Or
> rather - as a result of heavy negotiations in smoke filled rooms behind
> closed doors ;-) - an amalgam of both?
> Also, how (far) the three final bidders met the RfP requirements would
> be interesting. I don't mind if the names of the non-winning two would
> be anonymized.
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.
The WG should only intervene here -- ie by asking the NCC board to investigate
-- if we have reason to believe the RFP and/or contract was unfair or defective
in some way.
The WG must not and can’t (try to) micromanage the NCC’s DNS team.