Can we get a response from USGBC on this? I'm sure they are listening intently to this discussion.

1) How large was this survey? What percentage for each response? Why is this more important than the 86% approval of v4 when it was ratified in an open process per USGBC procedures? If 50% of new LEED registrations are international, how many of these users were included in this survey?

2) What other factors were involved in this decision? Anything relating to the American Chemistry Council? Is USGBC ready for v4? Is LEED Online ready?

3) What happen to the 3 year cycle for updating LEED? Why was discussion of v5 penalized during GreenBuild?

4) Why is an MR credits revision mentioned when delaying v4? When the minimum credit requirement for energy (2 point min.) was revised years ago it never delayed a whole system. It was changed, voted on separately by the USGBC members, and adopted. Should a change to the MR credits delay v4?

5) Where is the openness and transparency? This change appears to go against the Foundations of LEED. Delaying 18 months is a substantial change by prolonging weaker energy and material standards. "Updates cannot be integrated into LEED content unless approved through the LEED balloting procedures. ... Modifications to existing credit or prerequisite language as part of deliberate, next version improvements that change stringency or technical rigor"

I see this a bit like the US Treasury trying to convince people to switch from paper dollars to coin dollars. Why is this even an issue? Just stop printing the paper dollars and people will be ready to use the dollar coins.