Totally agree with you, Carlton Love, Sylvia _________________________________________________________ Sylvia Herlein Leite LACRALO-ALAC Liaison Latin America & Caribbean At-Large Regional Organization sylvia@internautabrasil.org -----Mensagem original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de SAMUELS,Carlton A Enviada em: quarta-feira, 21 de julho de 2010 22:04 Para: Alan Greenberg; ALAC Working List Assunto: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal A job only Alan seems capable of doing! I am on record as supporting adoption of this message as a formal ALAC statement. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:52 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement. Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting. Alan
To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
Dear Kevin,
At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results.
Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers.
In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds.
I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of guaranteed business.
I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note.
0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers.
1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in passenger comfort.
2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking.
3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of them.
4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early.
5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less.
6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class is allowed.
7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket.
8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of self-reservation privileges.
9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still coming out ahead!
10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%.
11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis.
12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable".
Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims.
I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac