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

[Milton Mueller]

>>> "Hansen, Ken" <ken.hansen at neustar.biz> 10/07/02 03:21PM >>>

>good works.

I feel that Harold answered this, but even more could be said. 
As noted in our report, "good works" can be considered a 
form of "supportiveness to the noncommercial Internet user 
community," which is called for in the RFP. It can also be 
justified by the RFP's reference to considerations that "may
be suggested by analysis and comparison of the proposals
received." I.e., if several applicants make "good works"
a substantial part of their proposal it is legitimate for the
evaluators to use that factor to discriminate among the bids.

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

"Supportiveness to the noncommercial Internet user 
community" is called for in the RFP. NCDNHC is certainly
part of that community, more directly so than, say,
the Red Cross. We did not exclusively award points for
support to NCC, as noted before. Your problem is not that you 
proposed to do nothing for NCC, but that you proposed
to do nothing for the noncommercial internet user
community.

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

Disagree. We simply tried to define specific, measurable
ways in which to asssess the RFP's call for responsiveness
to the noncommercial Internet community. A prior 
relationship is an attribute that can be identified and
rated.

>- 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.

Again, this was just an attempt to specify measurable
ways in which to asssess the RFP's call for 
responsiveness to the noncommercial Internet 
community. You are on very weak ground here. The RFP
gave some very general guidelines, the evaluators
had to make specific rankings and comparisons.

>"Overall our evaluation criteria were directly derived from the
>Request for Proposals (RFP) and the DNSO Policy consensus."  

The RFP was based largely on the DNSO policy consensus,
the only exception being the elimination of the requirement
that the bidders be nonprofit. We followed that elimination,
giving our top rank to a commercial applicant, and our third
rank to a commercial applicant.

>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).   

Now that the report is over, I am indeed speculating 
about what your motives are and what your thoughts were. 
But my personal comments on this list are not part of the 
Evaluation Report, as you well know, and have no relevance 
to the evaluation, which has been finished for a month. The
independence of the Evaluation results from my personal
opinions is solidly proven by the high ranking given to ISOC!
I am not a fan of the ISOC/Afilias proposal, to put it mildly.
But we applied our criteria and up they popped. I personally
felt very favorable to SWITCH, but we applied our criteria
and down they sank. 
 
> As the chairperson of the "Usage" evaluation team, your 
>comments about the technical evaluations are not 
>appropriate and further demonstration of bias.

Huh? What comments about the technical evaluations?