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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

> 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

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

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 >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

> 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, >

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

> 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

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

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