Re: [dns-wg] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones

[Hank Nussbacher]

On 25/10/2016 19:49, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
> Hi Romeo -
>
> On 25.10.2016 09:11, Romeo Zwart 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.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I hope this addresses the questions raised and clarifies the situation.
>> We're happy to hear more questions and feedback from the working group.
> thanks for the follow-up here on the list.

Tangential: In case you missed it.  Move over 8.8.8.8:
http://www.verisign.com/en_US/security-services/public-dns/index.xhtml

-Hank

>
> Best,
>
>   -C.
>

Re: [dns-wg] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones

[Carsten Schiefner]

Hi Romeo -

On 25.10.2016 09:11, Romeo Zwart 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.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I hope this addresses the questions raised and clarifies the situation.
> We're happy to hear more questions and feedback from the working group.

thanks for the follow-up here on the list.

Best,

-C.

Re: [dns-wg] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones

[Romeo Zwart]

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
> 
> 

Re: [dns-wg] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones

[Jim Reid]

> On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:53, Antonio Prado  wrote:
> 
> besides, I cannot fully understand how this WG could ask the NCC board
> to investigate "if we have reason to believe the rfp was unfair or
> defective in some way" when, actually, you just said "the contractual
> terms are out of scope for the WG".

Antonio, these are two different things.

The WG does not concern itself with what’s in this contract or how the RFP was 
conducted. That’s operational/implementation detail. If the service provided by 
the contract or RFP went wrong in some way or if someone complains, that falls 
within the WG’s remit. We don’t need to have knowledge of the content of that 
contract (or the RFP) to raise questions whenever a problem arises. ie The WG 
could formulate a list of questions for the NCC management/board and ask them 
to look into the matter and report back.

I hope this clarifies matters.

Re: [dns-wg] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones

[Carsten Schiefner]

On 18.10.2016 12:27, Jim Reid wrote:
> On 18 Oct 2016, at 11:04, Carsten Schiefner  wrote:
>>> [WG micromanaging 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.

As always, curiosity kills the cat, huh? ;-)

Cheers,

-C.

Re: [dns-wg] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones

[Jim Reid]

On 18 Oct 2016, at 11:04, Carsten Schiefner  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?

Depends on the Q 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.

Re: [dns-wg] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones

[Carsten Schiefner]

Hi Elvis,

On 18.10.2016 12:11, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
> On 10/18/16 1:04 PM, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
>> what other forum you would see fit then for such kind of Q?
> ncc services ? or the GM?

"NCC Services" I don't know... Wouldn't this WG be rather for services
being rendered *BY* the NCC than *TO* the NCC?

Then again, this could be a one-off part of the NCC's public
presentation that usually sets the floor for the GM afterwards - let's see.

Cheers,

-C.

Re: [dns-wg] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi Carsten,

On 10/18/16 1:04 PM, Carsten Schiefner wrote:

what other forum you would see fit then for such kind of Q?

ncc services ? or the GM?

cheers,
elvis

Re: [dns-wg] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones

[Antonio Prado]

On 10/18/16 11:36 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
> The contractual terms are implementation detail and therefore out of scope 
> for the WG

> 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.

jim,

I agree on your last sentence.

besides, I cannot fully understand how this WG could ask the NCC board
to investigate "if we have reason to believe the rfp was unfair or
defective in some way" when, actually, you just said "the contractual
terms are out of scope for the WG".

thank you
--
antonio

Re: [dns-wg] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones

[Jim Reid]

> On 18 Oct 2016, at 09:54, Romeo Zwart  wrote:
> 
> 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.

Thanks Romeo. This is great news.  Bringing in a competent DNS hosting provider 
will add diversity and resiliance to the DNS infrastructure for ripe.net. It’s 
also good that these new arrangements are documented in a contract. I’m sure 
the WG agrees. Well, I hope it does... :-)

I’m sure you’ll keep the WG informed of how this works out and what happens 
when the contract comes up for renewal.

My thanks and appreciation to your team for the hard work of preparing and 
running the RFP and arranging the contract with the supplier.

Re: [dns-wg] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones

[Jim Reid]

> On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:09, Carsten Schiefner  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.

Hi Carsten.

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.

 

Re: [dns-wg] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones

[Carsten Schiefner]

Hi Romeo & NCC DNS team -

first of all, congrats to the addition of resilience to the NCC's DNS
services! Good to have this aboard these days, I (unfortunately have to)
think...

On 18.10.2016 10:54, Romeo Zwart wrote:
> [...]
> 
> 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.

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.

Thanks & best,

-C.