[Date Prev]   [Date Next]   [Thread Prev]   [Thread Next]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]


Questions for NCDNHC
  • To: <org-eval@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Questions for NCDNHC
  • From: "Marshall Strauss" <mstrauss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:46:38 -0400
  • Importance: Normal
  • Reply-to: <mstrauss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Dear ICANN,

We posted the following question on the ICANN discussion site for .org.

1.	We do not understand why the validation concept elicited a "strongly
negative" response among some of the reviewers.  Can you please explain more
clearly why voluntary (optional) validation of a noncommercial registrant's
credentials, which would be posted in an accessible, transparent manner
would be seen as undermining the DotOrg Foundation in the "differentiation"
criterion?

2.	Please explain the formulas used to arrive at the normalized ranking
on pages 26-27 of the report. How much weight was assigned to each of the
three criteria?

3.	How did you distinguish our support letters in their graph on p.25?
Apparently, eGrants, WorldReach and Habitat for Humanity Canada were
classified as B - but they should all be A because they meet the criteria
spelled out on page 31.

4.	Why aren't we listed in the addendum that begins on page 36, which
details which supporting groups were contacted by NCDNHC and how they were
ranked (A or B)?  Were our supporters not contacted?

5. 	Why doesn't the table on page 43 give us more than a zero score on
geographic diversity when most of our supporting organizations (CanadaHelps,
Habitat Canada, Independent Sector, AFP) are all international
organizations.

Sincerely,
Marshall Strauss
President, DotOrg Foundation


[Date Prev]   [Date Next]   [Thread Prev]   [Thread Next]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]