All, I really do not understand what is going on here. I do not know if someone made a mistake or not and if so, who made a mistake. I do not think that this is relevant. Mistakes occur and we all have to help out to get things done. We should not spend days and days discussing this, instead staff should just book that flight to make sure that all ALAC members can fulfill their duties at the ICANN Meeting in San Juan. Best regards Annette Nick Ashton-Hart schrieb:
On 13 Jun 2007, at 18:27, Izumi AIZU wrote:
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 have communicated with Wendy based upon some information received from American Express and I will continue to work with her on the situation.
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.
Again, I'm sorry but this is just not the case. As I previously mentioned, what was put out in May was a minor evolution from what was used for Lisbon. What was done for Lisbon was an evolution of what was done for Sao Paulo.
This is not all new - far from it; it has been evolving from 'soft' policy and has become a set policy based upon the experience over several months. There are two new elements, in the per-diem system (a great simplification from the previous reimbursement-based system) and the new travel booking system (again, many improvements over the previous service).
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.
I'm certainly not making victims and I am glad to hear that you find many elements of the policy to be improvements. As I have said before, I'm all ears to suggestions for improvements. My thanks for the tenor of your comments :)
2007/6/13, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@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.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org