Hello Roberto,
Having been part of the Meeting Committee, I think I can add a further bit of information. ICANN relies on sponsor organizations to organize meetings: we issue a call for proposals, related to a geographic area and a time frame, and we evaluate the responses, taking into account various elements, including the cost. The organization of the planned 2007 Asia Pacific meeting has been particularly troublesome, due to unavailability of suitable proposals. For this reason, it had to be cancelled, and an alternative venue has been established in Los Angeles, while the calendar has been modified to allow AP not to miss the turn. While I do agree that there are other locations in Asia where lodging could have been less expensive, the fact is that we had to choose among the (very few) proposals on the table
Thanks for this critical point of view, Roberto. Obviously the approach of always depending on local sponsors is harming ICANN's ability to provide accessible meetings. When I read earlier Kieran's message I had considered a response suggesting that the logistical problems being realized (such as a wedding across the street) were due to the lateness in booking everything. It's normal when creating conferences to have hotel blocks nailed down at least a year before the event takes place. Not only should Delhi hotels all by contracted now, so should those for Paris; it's even leaving things late to have the African meeting not done by now, and we don't even have a city determined yet! As I suspected, the reason is not the tardiness of staff but the lack of useful direction given by ICANN regarding venues and the dependence upon (increasingly rare, it seems) support from local partners. Maintaining a policy of "we will only go where we can find local sponsors" has led to a process that is needlessly expensive, leads to horribly last-minute preparations, and as a result the events are severely reduced in accessibility. It adds substantial extra cost to ICANN for staff and subsidized travel, and makes attendance extremely difficult for any except the expense-account set and locals within commute distance to the venue city. I would like to advance to ALAC address this issue with the Board. It should maintain a goal of being in every region, however the reliance on local sponsors is HURTING, measurably, the greater ICANN community. As the constituency that speaks for public participation, I believe that ALAC needs to assert that changes are required. Here are my specific additions/changes to meeting policy: 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) 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. 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. 4) At least one meeting each year must have its location planned to maximize accessibility and minimize cost to attend. This is not just a matter of accessibility (though that is obviously important to me). This is a matter of giving ICANN staff enough room to breathe to make arrangements that are planned well in advance, reducing costs and last-minute headaches while giving potential attendees the ability to plan their participation and book flights well in advance when they're at their least expensive. It's common sense logistics and fiscal responsibility while maintaining regional diversity. (How is regional diversity served by falling back on L.A. because original plans fell through too late to choose reasonable alternates?) I fully understand the benefit of local sponsors, but ICANN needs to plan (at least some of) its meetings so to encourage maximum in-person participation -- there isn't a communications technology out there that beats the ability to look someone in the eye. In the absence of local sponsors, travel professionals can provide the necessary ground-level help -- and their cost will be more than offset by the savings realized in using less expensive venues. If ICANN takes public participation seriously, it must consider the issue of accessibility to its meetings as just one of many obstacles that now exists. Arguably, ICANN's lack of accessibility may even be one of the reasons it's having a harder time finding local sponsors... - Evan