Great job of summarizing the situation and wonderful ideas Nadav.

My take is that the primary rationale for the delay is due to international uptake of LEED. It is the growth area for the USGBC and there are legitimate concerns that v4 would be getting too far ahead of some of these markets.

Green building markets throughout the world are obviously not the same. Trying to create a single system that creates market transformation in every market is folly. In doing so you inevitably end up with a significant compromise. The single system can't be too far ahead of the markets that are the furthest behind. So the single system ends up being at or in some cases behind the markets that are the farthest ahead. That seems to be where we are now. v4 is too far ahead of the markets that are the farthest behind and LEED 2009 is falling behind the markets that are the farthest ahead.

When you think about a global LEED it makes sense to have two systems running in parallel. One that addresses transformation in more advanced markets and one that creates appropriate transformation in less advanced markets. What does not make sense is to curtail the transformation that is needed in the more advanced markets so that the less advanced markets can catch up.

I think that the easy solution would have been to stick to the original date for the transition to v4 in the US, Canada and much of Europe and extend 2009 for the rest of the world. This enables market transformation more appropriate to the local situation.