[ncdnhc-discuss] RE: Discuss digest, Vol 1 #518 - 5 msgs

[Harold J. Feld]

While not a part of the final team (having recused myself), I do feel I 
need to address this a bit.

Hansen, Ken wrote:

> Milton,
> 
> I will let the facts speak for themselves.  
> 
> - The NCC evaluation team awarded points for "good works" which was a
> criteria specifically rejected by the Board in Accra
> 

This is simply inaccurate.  Several directors expressed their hostility 
to the use of this aas a criteria.  The final Board decision did not 
"prohibit" it, as repeatedly claimed by those who did poorly on this 
critieria, and the language of the RFP was neutral.  Because it was 
related to the criteria of responsiveness, the team noted it in the 
evaluation.  To reflect the hostility reflected by some Board members 
and the neutral language of staff, the "good works" element was 
substantially discounted.

And, even if error, it was harmless.  It would not alter your ranking.


> - The NCC awarded points to those who offered financial support to the NCC.
> Again, this was not a criteria in the ICANN RFP.   


The term "responsiveness" was deliberately open ended.  re-read the RFP. 
  The RFP made plain that it did not intend to limit the universe of 
"responsiveness" to the examples cited.  The RFP did make clear that it 
measured responsiveness "to the non-commercial .org community."


> - The NCC evalutation team awarded points for relationship with the
> noncommercial community.  This also was not a criteria in the ICANN RFP.


On the contrary, this was explicitly part of the RFP.  PArtnerships with 
non-profits was one of the examples cited.


> - The NCC evluation awarded points for those applicants that conducted
> "pre-bid surveys".  This was not requested by the ICANN RFP and was not one
> of the ICANN RFP specified criteria.


I won't reiterate the reasoning here, as it is extensively documented in 
the report.  I will say that Neustar actaully benefited modestly from 
this "illegitimate" criteria because Neustar was given credit for its 
pre-bid survey.  It was not, however, allowed to claim responsiveness to 
the pre-bid survey as evidence of support for its specific bid.


> - The NCC awarded points for "post-bid responsiveness" to the NCC.  Again,
> this is not in 
> the ICANN RFP criteria.  The evalution also, "took account of the
> relationship the bidder proposes with the NCDNHC after winning the bid..."
> Again...not in the ICANN RFP criteria. 


You are, of course, entitled to disagree with the reasoning of the 
report.  Again, however, since Neustar benefited from this criteria, it 
seems to me rather an argument against interest.

 
> - By its own admission, the NCC's added new criteria from outside the ICANN
> RFP.  


No. You construe certain criteria as coming from outside the RFP.  The 
Evaluation Team, by contrast, found itself required to quantify an RFP 
which, by its nature, needed to be general rather than specific.  The 
team could have simply given a number with no explanation.  The 
explanation of its evaluation of the open-ended terms of the RFP did not 
add "new criteria" or alter the RFP.

Staff, of course, had the power to over-ride the User Evaluation Team 
had it felt that the criteria developed by the Eval Team strayed from 
the RFP.  Staff did not do so.  Similarly, the Directors are free to 
ignore the report if they feel the evaluators strayed from the RFP.

> 
> - The additional criteria added by the NCC evaluation team tilted the
> playing field in the favor of applicants who were non-profits or had
> noncommercial affiliations. This is particularly true of criteria like 'good
> works" and "relationship with the community".


This is not born out by the applications.  The applicants most likely to 
engage in good works were _commercial_ applicants (GNR, RegisterOrg). 
While the team acknowledged that ISOC's role in supporting Internet 
processes and IMS/ISC pledge to do likewise could be construed as "good 
works" this was given only an acknowledgement.  By contrast, GNR's ".or 
centers" and RegisterOrg's funding of Benton and OSI received full 
credit (the later after my departure).

 
> - Your comments make a number of subjective and speculative comments that
> are not grounded in fact or supported by the evaluation reports (e.g. you
> know what we were thinking about our chances of being selected or what our
> motives are).   


I would be very careful about stooping to the level of personal attack 
here.  You are entitled to advocate for your company, but to accuse the 
volunteers here of deliberately lying about their motives (and in the 
face of objective evidence to the contrary) is profoundly disturbing. 
No other applicant has attempted to turn this quasi-administrative 
process into a smear campaign against the individuals who made 
significant volunteer contributions of time and labor.  It would be very 
disappointing if Neustar, a sophistaicated participant in numerous 
administrative and quasi-administrative proceedings, began a "race to 
the bottom" with unfounded personal attacks.


> 
Harold