• To undertake an objective selection process for an entity or entities to provide DNSO Secretariat information and technical services on a contractual basis. (Similar such services are currently being provided by Elisabeth Porteneuve and AFNIC under legacy arrangements).

• A sub-committee of the NC Budget Committee;
• Members: Erica Roberts (Chair), Chuck Gomes, Vany Martinez, Elisabeth Porteneuve. Phillip Shepard joined the committee at the beginning of the evaluation process.

The Domain Name Supporting Organisation of ICANN Search Committee engaged Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd on 24 May 2001 to manage a Request for Proposal process to engage a Information and Technical Services Manager and optionally Internet Services Provision.

The task, as outlined in the agreement was to manage a request for proposal process (RFP) for DNSO, including

• Activation of the bid process
• Preparation of documents
• Preparation of evaluation criteria
• Handling of information requests
• Evaluation of submitted documents
• Preparation of a short list
• Final report to DNSO NC
• Any recommendations for contractual conditions, further actions, etc arising from the process.

• A consultant (Ian Peter and Associates) was identified and appointed in late May to manage the RFP selection and evaluation process.

The requirements of DNSO were primarily determined by the Search Committee before the Consultant was engaged, as were the Selection Criteria for successful applicants. These were refined and clarified by the Search Committee with the Consultant, and a document outlining the RFP requirements was posted on the DNSO web site on 5 June 2001. At the same time Chairs of all DNSO constituencies were requested to inform their members and other interested parties that the process was underway. It was also announced at the Stockholm meeting of DNSO NC (June 3).

It was agreed before the process began that it was mandatory for respondents to offer Section A, and that Section B was an option at this stage which DNSO NC may or may not pursue.

At the close of the evaluation period (extended to 23 June 2001) eight complete responses had been received.

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.

First Round Evaluation: was conducted by the consultant and resulted in an initial shortlist of five applicants..

Second Round Evaluation:

• Conducted during a teleconference including the consultant and the Search Committee
• A shortlist of three applicants was agreed. :
• Of the three applicants short listed, one offered Part A services, the other two offered both Part A and Part B services.
• The fees charged by all three were comparable for the services offered.

(Apology received from Vany providing late advice she was unable to attend teleconf))

Third Round Evaluation:

• Conducted by Interview Committee comprising Philip Shepard and Chuck Gomes. (Elisabeth and Erica withdrew from the evaluation process on the ground of potential conflict of interests.)
• Proposals from shortlisted applicant were forwarded to the Interview Committee.
• Interview Committee reported that:
• All three shortlisted applicants could be expected to do a good job;
• Lodger Inc recommended for appointment subject to their agreement to contract terms.