Hello Veni,
I didn't hear anything so far, which I haven't heard before, and on top of that, it comes with the suggestion "since this is so good, it should be implemented". May be, before putting all these on the table, so to speak, you could have contacted the Meetings Committee, or ask them why they have not so far implemented so many and so good things?
I asked the question on this (the public at-large list) because I wanted to elicit the point of view of other members of this constituency before moving forward. I wanted to know, from a specifically public-at-large POV, whether my suggestions have merit or whether objections exist. As it represents the public interest, at-large may (and, I would suggest, should) have a specific interest in this matter that is perhaps not shared (and may be indeed actively fought) by other ICANN constituencies.
Perhaps there is a good reason, and perhaps it is not as easy, as it sounds, to make the changes we all have been suggesting during the last years. Perhaps. But until that reason becomes evident, the question will still be asked.
It is insufficient answer to my suggestions to simply state that they were made before and churned through a long and tedious process. If there is a valid objection I very much want to hear it. That is why I have made these comments to the At-Large lists.
And I hope you will be able to understand that if something happens / does not happen the way you think it should be, there is also a very good reason behind it, and this reason obviously has priority upon your expectations. I've been through such processes before. Sometimes the "very good reason" is nothing more than inertia, fear of change, and/or the conclusion that "doing nothing" is an expedient solution. If there is indeed a truly good reason for the status quo of last-minute planning chaos that trumps the causes of stability and accessibility and that diminishes the value of my recommendations , I would very much love to hear it. So, I suspect, would others on this list.
Veni, if you were privvy to those objections, it would greatly assist this issue if you could clarify them. The simple awareness that there is "a reason", out there, somewhere, to go against the common sense approaches of other big orgs that do conferences, is not a suitable response. I am indeed very interested in a _constructive_ discussion that may result in a recommendation by ALAC and/or RALOs and/or ALSs within ICANN. This is exactly why I would like to know the objections to what I have proposed (since as you have mentioned they have already been raised). If my questions have already been asked and answered, and you know what the answers are, PLEASE reveal them. - Evan