Re: [council] Search Committee report

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Erica,

It would be of help for us to get more info before NC discuss
this topic. Criteria used and evaluation table used for this selection.

> Five of the eight respondents (Z,Y,W, V, and T) responded to
> Part A only. Three respondents (S, R, and Q) responded to both sections
> It was also announced at the Stockholm meeting of DNSO NC (June 3).

According to the process described in this paper, it should be more
clarified for the record, Erica.

Even though it said, it was announced on June 3 during NC meting in
Stockholm, which I had no memory on this during NC meeting and
no record even in the meeting minutes.

The first message to NC regarding this matter was on June 15 with
five days left. I guess that was reason to be delayed for the proposal
deadline.

>Agreed that expressions of interest for the supply of ISP/Hosting services
>on a sponsored basis should be followed up and that, if appropriate,
>the  ISP/hosting services should  be transitioned to a new supplier at the
>conclusion of the proposed 12 month contract with Loger Inc.

Can NC also have access to the details of the contract?

If my understanding is correct, the recommendation from the Search
committee should get recognized from the NC.

Appreciating Search committee's works and efforts, I would like to
hear more explanations the difference between Part A's technical
service and Part B's ISP/Web hosting.

YJ