Dear Amrita,

Regarding the current situation with the pilot travel plan, it's crucial to ensure transparency and inclusivity in decision-making processes. APRALO's stance of accepting the pilot plan as a one-time measure while advocating for broader discussion and agreement among all RALOs is commendable. Here are my views on the questions posed:

1. Prior Deliberation: Extensive deliberation is essential for any future travel policy. It ensures that the concerns and perspectives of all stakeholders, including ALAC members and RALOs, are considered. The pilot plan should serve as a catalyst for these discussions rather than a final decision.

2. Flexible Metrics: Metrics for travel allocation should indeed be flexible and region-specific. Allowing RALOs to devise their own metrics ensures that the policy reflects the diverse needs and circumstances of each region. Agreement on metrics should precede implementation to ensure fairness and buy-in.

3. Reciprocity: It's reasonable to expect reciprocity in travel slot allocation across regions. Fairness dictates that when one region receives additional slots for a meeting, the same opportunity should be extended to others in the future. This promotes equity and strengthens collaboration among RALOs.

4. Rotation System: Maintaining the rotation system for the allotted seat demonstrates APRALO's commitment to fairness and inclusivity. This ensures that all members have the opportunity to participate in ICANN meetings, contributing to diversity and representation.

In conclusion, APRALO's approach of advocating for broader consultation and flexibility in the travel policy is commendable. It promotes fairness, transparency, and collaboration within the At-Large community.

Best regards,

Mohammad Abdul Haque Anu 

Secretary General 

Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum 

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024, 10:25 Amrita Choudhury via APAC-Discuss, <apac-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

Dear APRALO members,

We have a few questions where we need your inputs, related to travel policy.  Link: https://forms.gle/gabjf8fshuM7x1pZ7

Sharing the background and recent developments first.

The background

As per the existing travel policy, there are 2 travel slots for each RALO and each of the 3 ALAC members travel to each meeting.

A small team had been constituted at the At Large to discuss and evolve a more fair and transparent travel policy than the existing one which is performance and utility based. The small team had two online discussions. Most felt that the performance metrics need to be evolved which are flexible and creative and RALOs have the independence to create their own metrics. At a session at San Juan there was a discussion but it was inconclusive.

Current developments:

About two weeks ago the ALAC Chair sent an email  announcing a pilot where slots for travel to ICANN80 were assigned based on the utility of travel members. However the slots of each RALO was reduced from 2 to 1 and 5 slots were allotted to AFRALO travellers.

This pilot has led to concerns in most RALOs. The main reason being it was a top down decision where before implementing it was not discussed in the small team or with the RALOs.

Several RALOs such as AFRALO, LACRALO and EURALO have issued statements against it and asked to repeal it.

APRALO LT position so far:

APRALO LT had written back the following statement:

"There had been no concluding discussions at San Juan on the topic of travel policy. Rather  the key takeaway was that there needs to be more deliberation and discussion before we agree on any new process. Therefore this proposal was a bit unexpected. 

While we from APRALO  are ok to go age will go with this proposed pilot travel policy, just as a one time PILOT, however we will  discuss it with the other RALOs and go with  what all the RALOs together decide upon.

Further, we wish to add that, 

1. Any  future travel policy needs extensive prior deliberation and agreement between all ALAC members and RALOs etc. Even for a pilot it is preferred there is deliberation.

2. We agree that metrics need to be implemented, but that would require further discussion and flexibility region wise. RALOs should have the discretion to fix their own metrics and allot the 2 seats they have. Once we have proper metrics in place  and  it is agreed by all, only then it should be implemented. It should not be enforced.

3. Additionally, while we have no issues with AFRALO being given additional slots, I hope the same will be reciprocated when we have meetings in other regions. The APRALO will definitely be keen to have more travel  slots during the Istanbul meeting.  Of course we will request that based on what sessions/ initiatives we propose for that meeting.

4. For the one seat allotted this time we will continue with the rotation system that we are following, at least for ICANN80 and Ali will attend it."

The Situation now:

Three of the RALOs have written back rejecting the Pilot Travel Plan.  NARALO has not issued any statement. As mentioned above APRALO LT had stated that we will go ahead with whatever  all RALOs decide together.

In that context we have a few questions where we need your view preferable by 17 April 2024 EOD.

Regards,

Amrita

on behalf of APRALO LT

_______________________________________________
APAC-Discuss mailing list
APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss

Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.