Hi Evan, Your comments are welcome but I thought we were making recommendations and I did not particularly point out anyone's comments. The issues do stand out in terms of developing and developed classification and that should really be ignored.
Small nit, but Pakistan is not on the UN list of lesser developed countries. Compared to the US it's way behind, but its GDP/person is more than double that of ICANN host country Kenya. Everything's relative :-)
I can't seem to find where I made divisions and classifications based on a stated UN system so can't really figure this out. Within the developing world, visa acquisition and air fares are definitely a different system. GDP classification can be used as a good indicator but economic practitioners have failed miserably to show whether it reflects the true net worth or financial status of individuals. The globe should have never faced a recession since GDP's were showing remarkable growth for many countries. I wouldn't debate the issue further and would provide http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue20/Vaury20.htm for a good read :o)
According to Alan's proposal, nothing changes for those who want to let ICANN do their bookings. The proposal merely suggests some extra flexibility for those who can (and like to) manage it.
I gave a recommendation and it can be included as a recommendation from a member. I did not disqualify Alan's recommendation neither did I point it out as Alan's. It just a standard recommendation from experience.
Careful, some people could be very offended by that statement. If it was a true concentration camp regime you might not make it >> to your destination -- ever. That was an extremely poor way to make a point.
Apologies for the way I said this but I think the point has been misunderstood added with the lack of vocabulary on my part. I have no issues nor had to rethink my participation in ICANN and I do am unable to welcome this argument framed back to my individual engagement. For the record. I am 100% committed. Let me try to re-frame it - Both ICANN and the Volunteers contribute significant resources to the process and thus management of arrivals and departures should be managed in such a way that the objective of active and adequate participation has been achieved by both parties. Arrivals and departures on the traveller's consent should accommodate their participation in the final day activities such as Board Meeting.
I've always found that ICANN staff -- at this level -- are human too. They mean well, and react nicely when not yelled at. I've had and witnessed my share of panics and all have been dealt with professionally. I have never encountered what I'd considered 'antagonistic' behaviour -- there are simply too many things that can go wrong, with all travelers, to single us out for bad treatment.
We may again have different perspectives of understanding this text. Let me replace antagonistic with opposing one's real situation that is unavoidable and a solution has to be granted as required by the traveller. Again different perceptions in experiences so can't really intervene on this further.
I disagree strongly with the need for a desk. ICANN travel staff are always on-call at the conference -- on-site long before we get there -- and are easy to track down (they usually have walkie talkies and at least have their mobile phones). IMO, having a specific desk will simply irritate the many stakeholder attendees who *didn't* get their travel subsidized without really creating any extra benefit we don't already have. It also puts unreasonable mobility limits on ICANN travel staff. If there's a problem just let the nearest At-Large staffer know. That system has always worked at every conference I've attended.
I stand firmly on this recommendation for the Travel Support Desk. Btw, I get a bit discouraged with arguments and arguments on recommendations. When recommendations are requested, recommendations of all sorts come in. In my perception, recommendations are made in sense that what is acceptable by the members or in a consensus by the majority gets considered and gets forwarded. My recommendations can be outright trashed and I don't mind it because yes they can be only limited to my experience. It gets really hard to go on and on and debate and debate on such recommendations. On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hi Fouad,
Most of the problems you describe are not limited to travelers from developing economies. I would really prefer not to segment the world more than is already being done; travel headaches -- such as missed check-in dates -- can happen to anyone. Bad travellers' luck does not discriminate regards to country of origin.
On 21 July 2010 19:18, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
I would like to step in to share perspectives and recommendations as a person who travels from the developing world.
Small nit, but Pakistan is not on the UN list of lesser developed countries. Compared to the US it's way behind, but its GDP/person is more than double that of ICANN host country Kenya. Everything's relative :-)
First and foremost, it is very hard to pay for air-ticket bookings on our own
According to Alan's proposal, nothing changes for those who want to let ICANN do their bookings. The proposal merely suggests some extra flexibility for those who can (and like to) manage it.
Issue 2 also implies that when we travel, we have to reschedule/allocate a lot of changes in our work plans, engagements, commitments etc and we should be on a boot-camp style or concentration camp style regime for travelling.
Careful, some people could be very offended by that statement. If it was a true concentration camp regime you might not make it to your destination -- ever. That was an extremely poor way to make a point.
As for changes in work plans, you're an ICANN volunteer leader and knew what the time demands were going to be in advance. Deal with it, just like the rest of us. Or feel free to avoid the travel, save the time and use the remote participation facilities. Sometimes those kind of conflicts happen, but that's not -- and should never be made to be -- ICANN's problem.
Recommendation 4: Eliminate Antagonist Behaviour towards Traveller's Urgent/Unavoidable Circumstances
I've always found that ICANN staff -- at this level -- are human too. They mean well, and react nicely when not yelled at. I've had and witnessed my share of panics and all have been dealt with professionally. I have never encountered what I'd considered 'antagonistic' behaviour -- there are simply too many things that can go wrong, with all travelers, to single us out for bad treatment.
Recommendation 6: ICANN should deploy an ICANN Travel Team Support Desk right near the registration desk at all ICANN meetings that should be operative from the day that ICANN staff or travelers arrive. Period!
I disagree strongly with the need for a desk. ICANN travel staff are always on-call at the conference -- on-site long before we get there -- and are easy to track down (they usually have walkie talkies and at least have their mobile phones). IMO, having a specific desk will simply irritate the many stakeholder attendees who *didn't* get their travel subsidized without really creating any extra benefit we don't already have. It also puts unreasonable mobility limits on ICANN travel staff. If there's a problem just let the nearest At-Large staffer know. That system has always worked at every conference I've attended.
The only occasional difficulty requiring a travel desk has been WRT airport-to-city transfers in some locations (Delhi comes to mind) and ICANN has generally dealt with those situations as well as could be expected. Every conference has something to teach. :-)
- Evan
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa