"Early rebid" (was Re: letters from Ted & Alissa)

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

As usual, I'm employed by ISOC but not speaking for it.

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 03:32:44PM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> 
> 1/ why did the RSOC decide to a/ rebid the RSE contract 2 years early & b/ decide to tell the world about it a further 
>     2 years earlier

Of all the things that I have found puzzling in this discussion, the
persistence of this description is the one I find strangest.

First, as I understand it, the RSOC is not in a position to "decide"
anything.  In any case, the discussion around IASA 2 made it pretty
clear that there were many moving parts in the RSE relationship, and
that it was going to need to get straightened out.  In such a context,
it is not surprising that we'd expect a revised structure and,
therefore, a revised basis for the contractual arrangement once that
revision was developed.  Yet it is not developed _yet_.

Now, speaking as someone who has a contract that might or might not be
renewed in 2 years' time, I find it _extremely helpful_ to know about
that possibility.  It's an elementary part of good planning to know
when contract events are likely to happen.

So, without any special knowledge and just relying on what is public
and what I know of other discussions around the IETF (again, from
public lists), it seems to me that the RSOC made the only plausible
recommendation under the circumstances: renew the contract now, for a
2 year term.  But moreover, in the interests of transparency, make
sure that everyone understands that there probably will be some new
working basis in a couple years, and that a re-bid would be
appropriate then.  That doesn't make this "early" or a "termination"
or anything like that.  It's just standard good-will practice.  (Also,
given all the accusations of lack of transparency, I find it somewhat
ironic that one main problem was a surfeit of transparency.)

Now, of course, I don't know what was on the mind of the RSOC, and I
think it would be an exceptionally bad precedent for us to start
discussing these sorts of issues on a public list or with anyone not
involved in the contractual chain.  But it seems to me the entire story
is possibly explained in an utterly ordinary way, and that one main
lesson is that complex supervisory arrangements lead to convoluted
communications paths that increase the chances of misunderstanding.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]