Hi Ted, On 20-Jun-19 03:13, Ted Hardie wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 9:46 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > What Sarah's message didn't make quite clear is that the 2021 re-bid would be two years early, given that the full term of the current contract ends 6 years from 1/1/2018. (https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/RSE-2018-Independent-Contractor-24Oct17-Public.pdf, > Clause 3 "TERM"). > > > First, you should note that this contract, like the others ISOC held on behalf of the IETF was assigned to the IETF LLC. > > This is the text from the section you cite. > > 3.TERM:ISOC, at the request of the IAOC which is acting on behalf of the IAB and RFCSeries Oversight Committee (RSOC), desires to engage the Contractor to fulfill theresponsibilities of the RSE. > a. Term: The term of this Agreement is two years (the “Term”) beginning on the Effective Date. > b. Extensions: This Agreement may be extended twice by mutual written agreementof the parties (the “Extensions”), with each Extension being for a period of up to two years. > > As Alexander noted, the base term is two years, and it may be extended. Yes, but as Sarah said "The difference here is that the RSOC decided proactively to recommend to put the contract out to bid again" after the first (not the final) extension to the 2018 contract. That decision was two years ahead of the normal course of events, and that is what has surprised many of us. Brian > The RSOC review Sarah referenced is the review which takes place every two years to consider these extension or, if no further extensions are permitted, to create an RFP. In this case the RSOC recommended an extension, but Heather did not "mutually agree". > > regards, > > Ted Hardie
