[At-Large] Travel Policy Q&A Discussion / Teleconference Vendors

[Izumi AIZU]

OK, so as you wrote, Nick, if one failed to follow the new rule
at the first implementation, then that's it? I don't know the details
of how Wendy and Amex communicated, and as a professional
business Amex or whoever usually defends against some
allegation, and I have no interest in judghing which party is right
or not. The simple point is - are there any way to make this
participation possible or not?

I understand your frustration, Nick, but that is your work to make
sure things work. As for travel policy, I appreciate your effort to
implement the first one after more than four years. But we have
been requesting this and there was no "comment" period, but
just given one way and you said this is better than the previous one
which is mostly true, but that does not mean the new system works
automatically.

I see your language sounds a bit too emotional. (mine, too, perhaps)
Please be cool. Let's do the work. Be happy, be flexible and please do
not make victims. And meet all at San Juan.

izumi


2007/6/13, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>:
> I have no interest in making this travel policy discussion into a
> he-said she-said debate (but that's included below for the prurient).  I
> do have an interest in asking ICANN to apply its policies fairly, which
> includes being flexible with newly implemented policies.
>
> The open question remains: will ICANN see its way to ensuring that both
> North American ALAC members are able to participate on the ground in San
> Juan, or not?
>
> --Wendy
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> > Please see below.
> >