Evan, 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. Let me adress them separately, starting from the latter. You say, rightfully so, that at least some of the current problems with Delhi, like the marriage next door, have been created by the lateness in choosing and booking the venue. I agree completely, but I have to disagree on the statement that this is completely ICANN's fault. 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. 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. At that point, to keep the calendar as it was, would have meant that AP would have lost its meeting, and would not have had another one before 2009. Moreover, we had the AP-RALO to be officially signed, although it is already functional, and we wanted to do this in an AP meeting, to have more participation from the region. 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, although I was not alone in thinking that the AP region, and in particular the AP RALO, could not have been penalized so much. Incidentally, I still think it was the right decision, and stand fully behind it. Yes, we are having drawbacks, but IMHO they are manageable, while the failure to have a meeting in AP in years would have been a major issue. All this to say that the LA+Delhi situation cannot be considered a typical example, but rather an exception, where ICANN Staff, under tremendous pressure, have done the best that they could given the circumstances, and I do believe that they are doing an excellent job. To your suggestions, that address the future, I would like to provide the comments below your text.
1) Searches for local sponsors will take place immediately upon the determination of dates and region (nominally to take place at least two years in advance)
I agree that we need to set the calendar earlier, there is complete agreement between Board and Staff. The only concern is the interdependence among different meetings (IETF, RIRs, other international for a, etc.), but I am sure that something can be done on this.
2) If regional sponsors request venues that would be significantly more expensive to attend than others in the same country, the Meeting Committee will work to negotiate a venue with the sponsors that is mutually acceptable.
This is already being done. And the discussion with the sponsors include not only the cost of the venue, but also how easy it is to reach it, if there are enough hotel rooms available, etc. There are several criteria that are analysed, and weighted.
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. Take as example the last meeting: it was scheduled for the last week in October. Had ICANN chosen not to move the location, but to delay it one month, what do you think would have happened? (Hint: one month later that the last week in October is the last week in November). Just to say that some solutions are easier said than done.
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. 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. Cheers, Roberto