[At-Large] Add to agenda for teleconf: travel policy to exclude participation

[Izumi AIZU]

Hi,

2007/6/13, alice <alice at apc.org>:
> Was not called for the teleconference at all today so missed it entirely!

Though I dropped off when the rest of ALAC called was still online,
and it was 1:30 in the morning, I still have to work for my own...

I really ask ICANN/Nick to reconsider the Conf Call operator and
suggest the feasibility of using the one GNSO is using
(Alan, am I correct that they are better in service and quality?)
Also to prevent some mistake Vittorio had, I also like to suggest
the specific time to each member of ALAC be displayed in the
call notice, just like the GNSO call annoucement does.

Now, as for travel policy, I strongly echo with Wendy and Alice.
While having a uniform policy seems fair, the rigid implementation
without making necesarry adjustment may result in the unfair
result as are already shown the case.

I understand Wendy contacted the ICANN agent in time, but
the agent, Amex failed to repond her back. Even it was one
day before the deadline, there were no specific information
made clear as to when one should contact the agent. And
for Wendy, it is just one flight from NYC to Puerto Rico which
is sort of US territory, it is natural to assume that things can
be arranged relatively in short notice. I don't see much
reason for ICANN to reject her travel simply because the
Agent failed to arrange the ticket etc in time. It looks like
trying to keep the rule of law and kill the people who did not
actually breake the law. Is there any appeal or reconsideration
process? Or once AtLarge Director decides, that's it?

As for Alice's case, again, for some welathy people they can pay the
cost first and they get reimbursed later. For some ordinary people
representing the individuals users who volunteer the time etc
working for non-profits, like Alice, from less developed countries,
it may not be so easy. If the rule is uniform but flexible enough,
I think we can find the mutual solution. But setting the policy
in the last minutes, after 4 plus years of void (for new members,
ALAC has not been given ANY written travel policy until the one
we got a few weeks ago), and then implement it right away
in non-compromising manner does not make sense to me.

Correct me if I am wrong, and please provide good reasons why
the new implemenation method should be kept that way.

FYI, I am OK with the new per-diem style, and for that I have
requested my organization to provide me the cash in advance
in some quantity and then later make adjustment since it is
not a simple single trip to ICANN Meeting, but I combined
one with my own business to Europe. But I think that is
a sort of exception and not represent the rest of ALAC.

thanks,

izumi



>
> among other things,  I had wanted to add my concerns regarding the
> recent travel policies.  Indeed, there has been a need to have a clear
> uniform travel policy for the ALAC, however,  I do agree with Wendy.
> Some aspects of the new travel policy are indeed ridiculous and
> unacceptable. For example, there is provision for per diem system but
> the per diem is refunded after the event, how is that supposed to work?
> further,  tickets being purchased through the new travel agency are not
> upgradeable. tickets that can be upgraded as well as timely
> communication regarding accommodation, should be minimum. ALAC members
> attend these meetings to work  and it is unacceptable to have volunteers
> treated in this manner!
>
> alice
>
>
> Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> > Unless ICANN has dealt with them by the call, I'd like to take 2 minutes
> > to raise my concerns about ridiculous implementation of the new travel
> > policies.  So far, I've seen a use of process to exclude participation,
> > which I'd hate to think was ICANN's intent in streamlining its policies.
> >
> > --Wendy
> >
>
>
>