Hello Roberto, First, thank you for raising back the level of the debate to one that addresses the issues directly.
I think that there are two separate issues here: some suggestions for the medium term, and some criticism about the Delhi situation in the short term.
I agree. It is too late regarding Delhi to do anything but rely on Stacy, Kieren and ICANN staff to make the best of what is possible. I know they're doing their best and have utter faith that it will turn out fine.
We have to go back to mid-2007, when both preferred bids for the ICANN 2007 AGM, planned to be in Asia Pacific, went belly-up. This was not at all ICANN's fault, although I don't want to get into details. I guess that forms part of my concern, that the reliance on local bids are both slowing the process, and leading to venues that may be easy to host but hard to attend. This is a component that is now beyond ICANN's control; I am suggesting that ICANN needs to re-take some of that control.
At this point, the Meeting Committee had to replace the venue with a new one, that could be managed in a short time. LA was chosen. We could discuss forever whether an alternative place could be found, but the thing that drove the decision was mainly the proximity of the venue to ICANN HQ. IMHO, that was the right decision, although not a perfect one.
Agreed. Arguably these days, given visa issues, the US is not a very accessible venue, especially given the last-minute nature of the LA selection. (I look forward to the attempt to have a meeting in Havana. ;-) ) What I would have hoped for -- and would like to advocate -- is to push the calendar back, and to give the committee the breathing room to use arbitrary discretion regarding cities if no suitable bids in the region emerge. That way, if the existing AP bids fall through, the committee could select another city in AP without a host and move appropriately.
My firm position in the Meeting Committee was that we needed to revise the calendar, having a meeting in AP at the earliest possible date (Feb.2008), soliciting immediately bids from the region. There were different opinions in the committee, and I understand that you might have favoured a different solution, which could have avoided the lateness in booking an AP venue: I am willing to take the full blame for this decision, I believe you took the correct position given the situation. I am suggesting that, in the future, that this decision is made six months earlier, so that an alternate in the selected region can be found. That was not possible given the circumstances earlier this year.
As I suggested before, based my own experience of conference planning I would have expected the core Paris venue(s) and the African city to have been finalized by now. Not doing so offers the potential to similar problems such as Delhi's costs and last year's fall-back to LA. If there are no suitable bids from Africa at this time the committee still needs to make a decision very soon. Find a city (Cairo? Nairobi? Capetown? Tunis?) that has a good combination of flight/hotel cost/availability (and maybe some ALSs) and choose it. At least that's what I believe should happen. I know this is getting beyond the original ALAC discussion; my point is that we perhaps should recommend some policies that give the committee more time, and more flexibility to make a city choice when no proper bids exist.
3) If a suitable local-sponsored venue within a target region is not found within 18 months of the event date, the Meeting Committee (with staff assistance) will select a venue within the target region, based on availability and accessibility. This selection must be finalized within 15 months of the event date. If the Meeting Committee cannot determine a venue in the region, the staff will choose one within the following month.
The way ICANN meetings are organized, interconnected with other meetings, and dependent on other different events, to move the date might be virtually impossible. I am not advocating to move the date; rather, I am suggesting that the Committee be given the authority to choose a city in the region arbitrarily if no proper bids exist. Keep the region and the date, change the city.
Once the meeting dates are set they should not be changed. What I am suggesting is that the committee and staff have their own fallback city in each region to use if no proper bids are received. IMO such research should already be starting for the 2009 venues once the African city is chosen. There are many travel-industry resources available that track the relative expenses (and other obstacles) of cities as conference venues.
4) At least one meeting each year must have its location planned to maximize accessibility and minimize cost to attend.
There has been, a couple of years ago, I believe, the proposal of having one meeting in a "hub". It was rejected, although there has been the commitment that special care would be given not to have in the same year three locations that would be all costly and/or difficult to access. For 2008, the "hub-like" venue is Paris.
I agree that Paris is actually a very good hub, especially considering cheap flights from Europe and the access from Africa. Hotels are not the cheapest but they're not $500 like Delhi. :-) I am genuinely curious to know the reasons against a policy of mandating one meeting each year in a "hub". Each region has at least a few "hub" cities.
Anyway, I personally welcome the debate in ALAC about the meeting. Maybe ALAC could try to come to some consensus on few points, that can be brought to the attention of the Board by the ALAC Liaison. Even things that were rejected in the past, like the "hub", could be reconsidered if the community wishes so.
This is a good plan to proceed. Again, thanks so much for your comments. - Evan