<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Great improvement, one suggested change
- To: "meetings-proposal-2012@xxxxxxxxx" <meetings-proposal-2012@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Great improvement, one suggested change
- From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 06:55:57 -0700
The suggested approach would be a great improvement on the current system and I
support it wholeheartedly.
What I don't understand however is the Europe/Asia choice.
I'm concerned that in an effort not to look so US-centric that the logical
choice of North America for one of the main hubs has not been chosen.
The reality is that over 50 percent of ICANN attendees always come from the
United States. And the majority of ICANN staff are based in the US. That's not
a situation likely to change much in the medium term.
Travel time, cost and convenience for attendees should be one of the important
factors under consideration - certainly more so than perceived concerns - and
that would clearly point to North America as a one of the two regional hubs.
I would also like to make a suggestion: that the money saved from going with
this (superior) approach be quantified. And that the community be asked what
improvements could be made at meetings themselves (keeping travel and hotel
support entirely separate).
You might find that a lot of small changes would improve meetings *for the
attendees* and the funds would be readily available from the existing budget.
Kieren McCarthy
[from mobile device]
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|