oscar wrote:
On 9/29/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't think that it helps the transparency of the process when someone like Jimbo begins by supporting a bid before the bidding has seriously started.
this is not the point, jimbo imho raises 3 questions which we need to address.
(quoting my email:) *how can we make such fortunate results not disappear down the drain? *would the torino-sponsors be willing to do the same for 2008? *how long can we afford to wait with this without spoiling the opportunity?
I have no problem with these questions. It is nevertheless important, assuming that Torino is still interested for 2008, that other cities have the opportunity to make bids that will be considered seriously. Cities interested for 2008 that were either undinterested or unenthusiastic about 2007 could still present something for 2008. To be sure the existing Torino bid will establish a tough standard to beat, but that should not stop others from trying.
As to how long we can wake, I believe that the decision should be made relatively soon. At the very minimum the winners for 2008 should have time to prepare a presentation to the delegates in Taipei inviting them to their city the following year, and generating enthusiasm.
For 2009 and later we need to solidify our processes and timetable for selecting the city. Perhaps the candidates for 2009 can be known in time for Taipei so that people there can start informally expressing their opinion. The final decison must remain with a limited group that is capable of evaluating bids objectively.
Ec