After I read your posting as well as your other message
on the NCDNHC board, I can understand your emotion towards NeuStar's critisim on the NCDNHC report, as your (as well as NCDNHC's) credential and reputation are on the line.
Personally I would like to have an organization such as IMS/ISC to run .org (as I have known Paul Vixie/Rick Adams' work for a very long time). However, after I have read all 11 bids, I have to
rank NeuStar as #1 purely based on the proposal. I would hate to say that the NCDNHC team did not perform a decent job, at least it should not leave the door open for someone to attack the methods and results shown in the report. For example, your blatant rejection of NeuStar's claim of 5 additional support letters in the final supplemental report would show that you guys did not bother to double check again as all of them were posted on June 25, along with another one posted on July 11, with some of them endorsing NeuStar's proposal explicitly.
Also, I did a review of all 522 ISOC/Afilias support letters posted before Aug 5, the cut-off date you announced on the NCDNHC board. About 70 contained references to .org domain names from non-ISOC members and around 30 were from .org registrants.
I am afraid to say that you may fall in a trap so that someone could be put the blame on you and NCDNHC. I hope this will not be the case.