On 28-Dec-07, at 3:56 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
one could gather that ICANN's meeting committee and staff see themselves like the Olympics, sitting back and expecting the cities of the world to compete vigorously to be hosts. This is even though -- unlike the Olympics -- the host appears to have little chance of revenue despite significant expense. Not only does such vigorous competition not exist, but perhaps ICANN should consider that the venues that submit host applications may be most inconvenient for the world to attend.
I have long had a problem with this model. You've exactly nailed most of the problems with ICANN's current practice of engaging local sponsors. My biggest issue, which you've not completely surfaced, lies with the investment that the local sponsor must make in order to pull the event off. There is something seriously wrong when a predominantly rich, powerful, etc. group of "volunteers" (code word for paid advocates in most cases) require local organizations in third world countries to underwrite the organizing costs of meetings held in their region. I do not know exactly how much of an investment the local sponsor must make, but for most regions we go to, all of this money could be better spent on bettering the local internet. -r