From 10 years ago!! Come on auDA get serious or let the Federal Government take it over
This really shows up some serious issues...
Perhaps the auDA board needs to have restrictions on who can be a member and in a power position?
Something is just not adding up for transparency and " Best Practice". Domain name registrants are consumers.. They have rights also about their domain name registrations, pricing, "anti competitive behaviour" etc
https://www.auda.org.au/industry-information/registry/registry-tender/
Registry Tender
On 30 June 2006 the current registry licence held by AusRegistry expires.
On 29 August 2005 auDA issued a Request for Tender for a four year licence agreement for the provision of registry services in .au second level domains, commencing 1 July 2006.
auDA
announced AusRegistry as the preferred tenderer on 28 October 2005.
auDA
signed a new 4 year licence agreement with AusRegistry on 18 November 2005.
Tender Documents
The RFT comprises seven Parts. Each Part is available for separate download (PDF) below. Each Part must be read in conjunction with the other Parts of the RFT.
RFT Front Page and Table of Contents
RFT Part One – Preliminaries
RFT Part Two – Background Information
RFT Part Three – Evaluation Process and Criteria
RFT Part Four – Terms and Conditions of Tender
RFT Part Five – The Schedules – also available as a
Word document
RFT Part Six – Technical Specification
RFT Part Seven – Registry Licence Agreement
RFT Addendum No 1 (issued 20/09/05)
RFT Questions and Answers
auDA considered the following questions about the RFT from a number of enquirers, in accordance with the terms and conditions of tender. The questions have been published in the table below as they were submitted, without amendment.
The responses provided by auDA are provided for clarification purposes only, and do not constitute an addenda to, or in any way amend the RFT.
auDA has responded to the questions with reference to the RFT, and, in particular, the Evaluation Process and Criteria in Part Three of the RFT. auDA’s answers in no way indicate whether a tender, or any information proposed to constitute part of the tender, will be favourably or adversely considered by auDA, irrespective of whether such indication is sought by the enquiring party.
Question No
Question
auDA’s Response
1
With respect to the evaluation criteria set out in Part 5 Schedule 2 Clause 2.1, relating to a respondent’s ‘proven capacity to manage a domain name registry or a comparable registry, or experience in DNS operations, we note that the Australian incorporated entities of leading global operators such as VeriSign Inc. could be argued to have no experience in running a comparable registry. Could auDA confirm that the extensive capability and experience of our parent company – if it decided to commit itself to assisting the Australian entity – in managing the world’s largest and/or most complex domain name operations in the world will be favourably considered under the evaluation process? We believe that such an assurance will make a substantial contribution to a competitive evaluation process that will provide Australia with access to global best practice capability in this area.
The capability and experience of Related Bodies Corporate, to the extent that it is relevant to the RFT, will be considered under the evaluation process. A Respondent in this position should explain how it receives, or would receive, the benefit of the experience of its Related Bodies Corporate.
2
We note the minimum threshold requirements set out in Part 3 Clause 7 of the RFT. Can auDA confirm that tenderers will receive no additional weighting or scoring by differentiating their bids through the provision of superior technical solutions (Clause 7.4.1) and enhanced business model proposals (Clause 7.5.1)? Are we correct in understanding that tenderers are encouraged not to compete by providing their best possible solution on these mandatory elements and focus instead on the Evaluation Criteria set out in Clause 8.2?.
By definition, threshold requirements are either met or not met. However, while meeting the Technical Specification is not an Evaluative Criteria, auDA believes that the technical solution or solutions proposed by a Respondent are likely to affect the Respondent’s responses under the Evaluative Criteria. Therefore, auDA expects Respondents to put forward their best possible solution or choice of solutions, within the parameters of the RFT.
3
VeriSign Australia understands that transition is an important risk factor in any evaluation process that centres on business continuity of a registry. Against that background, can auDA confirm whether Part 3 Clause 9.2.1 presumes that the incumbent operator AusRegistry will have the best Transition Plan? If so, can auDA also confirm whether the highest ranked tenderer in relation to the Evaluation Criteria set out in Clause 8.2 could lose to a tenderer with a less highly ranked bid but a perceived advantage in terms of the Transition Plan. Furthermore could a bidder not score highly on its transition plan if it was not compatible with the plan of AusRegistry, even if it was not familiar with those plans because they are not public.
As explained in Part Five Clause 3, the Transition Plan is a “detailed plan to transition Registry Services from AusRegistry (that is, the incumbent Registry operator) to the Respondent, and the migration of Registry data from AusRegistry to the Respondent by 30 June 2006.” Accordingly, if AusRegistry responds to the RFT, auDA does not expect that it will provide a Transition Plan. In the event of transition evaluation under Part Three Clause 9.2.2, it is possible that the Preferred Respondent ranked highest after stage two will not be the successful Respondent. Under the AusRegistry RLA, AusRegistry is required to cooperate with auDA and the successor Registry Operator to facilitate a smooth transition. Therefore, if AusRegistry is not the successful Respondent, transition will occur pursuant to the successful Respondent’s transition plan.
etc
