Your inputs requested on the Travel Policy before 17 April EOD
Dear APRALO members, We have a few questions where we need your inputs, related to travel policy. *Link: https://forms.gle/gabjf8fshuM7x1pZ7 <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
I write in support of the ALAC Chair's pilot program for ICANN80 travel allocation. While concerns about a lack of prior discussion are understandable, I believe this pilot offers a chance to pave a new way forward towards a more efficient and transparent travel policy. As may be now the number might be reduced but once it comes to our region we can use the number in our benefit. Addressing Travel Inefficiencies, reducing the number seems inefficient but it certainly needs to be based on performance and utility-based approach which cannot be denied. In the past I do not think this was justified by many of the leaders who have traveled and failed to even update the community about their engagement in the meetings and it happens every where. Too many people traveling in the name of leadership with limited engagement in not justifiable infact to argue that there needs to be metric for leadership travel member to justify this. The pilot program for ICANN80, though implemented without extensive pre-discussion, can be a valuable step towards a more transparent system. By assigning slots based on travel member utility, and location, can prioritize sending those whose presence will contribute most effectively which will promote better and new leadership and efficiency. Using the pilot's insights, the travel policy can refined with clear performance metrics that are flexible and allow RALO customization and performance of the leadership team and people who are using the travel fellowship. While the pilot program's implementation could have been more inclusive, it presents an opportunity for positive change which matters. Maintaining open communication with RALOs throughout the process is crucial. It needs to adopt regular discussions and feedback loops will ensure a transparent and inclusive policy development. Let's embrace this chance to develop a travel policy that is both efficient and reflects the needs of our diverse RALO communities. Regards, 🙏🙏🙏 ______________________ Shreedeep Rayamajhi ICT4Development Consultant Kathmandu Nepal Mobile (Nepal) (+977)9851049683 Mobile (USA) +01 (301) 485-9395 https://icannwiki.org/Shreedeep_Rayamajhi https://www.linkedin.com/in/shreedeeprayamajhi DISCLAIMER: This message is intended only for the recipient. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. On Tue, Apr 16, 2024, 10:10 AM 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 <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.
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 <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.
Dear Shreedeep and Anu, request you and all other APRALO ALS members and Individual members to submit your comments using this link ( *Link: https://forms.gle/gabjf8fshuM7x1pZ7 <https://forms.gle/gabjf8fshuM7x1pZ7> ) *and not on the mail as it will be easier for us to summarize before today 17th end of the day. Regards, Amrita On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 16:29, Mohammad Abdul Haque <mahaqueanu@gmail.com> wrote:
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 <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.
Dear Amrita, I have already submitted the form. Regards, Phyo On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:25 AM 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 <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.
Dear APRALO Community, Thank you to all who submitted their response to the Travel Policy Poll. While the responses of the poll were shared in yesterday's APRALO Monthly call, sharing a summary of the same here. 34 people participated in the poll. As the poll was conducted prior to the Pilot Travel Policy being shelved (Ref: Mail from ALAC Chair). some of the responses will not be relevant. - 76% respondents supported the APRALO LT position on the Pilot Travel Policy. - 63% opined that the Pilot Travel Policy should be rejected. - 82% respondents felt that APRALO should have the discretion on how to use the 2 travel slots of the RALO - 94% felt that APRALO should be empowered to set APRALO specific metrics to evolve the travel policy which is fair and accountable and where required people for the meetings are predictable - In terms of suggestions for what could be the 2 or 3 parameters APRALO should apply metrics on to establish the new travel policy program for the RALOs, were: Engagement and Participation Equity Impact Assessment of Contribution (RALO, Community, IG) Diversity & Inclusion Incentive to engage Prioritize travel slots for RALO members who have proposed specific session topics, workshops, or initiatives that align with ICANN's strategic objectives and tnterests of the At-Large community. As a next step we will deliberate further in a small group on these metrics. Regards, Amrita On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 09:54, Amrita Choudhury <amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in> wrote:
Dear APRALO members,
We have a few questions where we need your inputs, related to travel policy. *Link: https://forms.gle/gabjf8fshuM7x1pZ7 <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
participants (4)
-
Amrita Choudhury -
Mohammad Abdul Haque -
Phyo -
Shreedeep Rayamajhi