Re: [council] Search Committee report

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany@sdnp.org.pa>]

Hi Erica:

I think that what YJ wants to see (and I) is a checklist for the three
candidates.  A comparative chart.

Also I must note that you ahev to add COST to the items you have pointed
out as selection criteria.

Please remember that I made a sumary of the reports that Chuck, Philip and
I. Such sumary was submited to Chuck and Philip, for their review.
However Philip oposed
that I circulate such sumary to the Search Comite (language barrier). For
Chuck it was OK.

I think that such a sumary is the nearest approach that exists right now
and if all of you are agree, I can send such a sumary I made.

Best Regards
Vany

On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, erica wrote:

> Here are the selection criteria fyi
>
>
> Proven technical skills and capabilities relevant to the key deliverables
> outlined above;
> Proven project management skills;
> Proven ability to work effectively in a multicultural environment;
> Demonstrated high level communication skills (the linga franca of the
> Internet is English and applicants must have high level English language
> written and oral communication skills, including technical writing skills);
> Ability to work both independently and as a member of a team in an on-line
> environment;
> A demonstrated understanding of issues relating to the technical
> administration of the domain name system (DNS) and the role played by the
> DNSO and ICANN;
> Cost;
> Quality of service;
> Security and redundancy provisions; and
> Previous experience in providing similar services for international
> organisations.
>
>
>
> erica
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
> To: "erica" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>; <council@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 8:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [council] Search Committee report
>
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>

-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax: (507) 230-3455
e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
http://www.sdnp.org.pa