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.
On 12 Jun 2007, at 19:16, Izumi AIZU wrote:
Hi,
2007/6/13, alice <alice@apc.org>:
Was not called for the teleconference at all today so missed it entirely!
Though I dropped off when the rest of ALAC called was still online, and it was 1:30 in the morning, I still have to work for my own...
I really ask ICANN/Nick to reconsider the Conf Call operator and suggest the feasibility of using the one GNSO is using (Alan, am I correct that they are better in service and quality?) Also to prevent some mistake Vittorio had, I also like to suggest the specific time to each member of ALAC be displayed in the call notice, just like the GNSO call annoucement does.
On the first point, I entirely agree that the experience we've had, especially of late, with Verizon is completely unacceptable and extremely frustrating. I have already made some representations internally on this point (I will ask who the GNSO uses) and will have further discussions in the next couple of days. I do entirely accept that it is essential that the time which volunteers are donating to work at ICANN should not be wasted, especially with faulty provision of an essential service like teleconference providers.
Now, as for travel policy, I strongly echo with Wendy and Alice. While having a uniform policy seems fair, the rigid implementation without making necesarry adjustment may result in the unfair result as are already shown the case.
I understand Wendy contacted the ICANN agent in time, but the agent, Amex failed to repond her back. Even it was one day before the deadline, there were no specific information made clear as to when one should contact the agent. And for Wendy, it is just one flight from NYC to Puerto Rico which is sort of US territory, it is natural to assume that things can be arranged relatively in short notice. I don't see much reason for ICANN to reject her travel simply because the Agent failed to arrange the ticket etc in time. It looks like trying to keep the rule of law and kill the people who did not actually breake the law. Is there any appeal or reconsideration process? Or once AtLarge Director decides, that's it?
The policy with respect here provided that tickets must be BOOKED AND TICKETED by the 9th. This does not mean simply contacting the travel provider to get an itinerary by the 9th, or calling them by the 9th, but actually ensuring that the tickets were BOOKED AND TICKETED by the 9th. This was made clear to all those who booked their tickets through American Express; since you bought your tickets independently Izumi you wouldn't have received this email as it did not apply to you.
That policy was not provided by ICANN, but buried in an email from the confusingly email-named tpagroups@aexp.com (i.e., not something that rose to the top in my mailbox searches).
We are currently receiving information from American Express about the additional contacts recently mentioned by Wendy. I can confirm at this point that American Express sent her two itineraries - on the 1st June and the 6th June - which she didn't respond to until the Friday 8th June late in the day GMT.
In between, I did ask them for a telephone call which I never received. I can also confirm that dozens of others offered
travel support managed to complete their arrangements long before the deadline, and many of these had much more complicated itineraries than Wendy's.
I'm sorry, but I was trying to juggle other obligations than ICANN alone, and thus intended to use the full period allotted to figure out how those would mesh. If that full period was not available, clearer notice should have been given. I have used travel agents who would turn around a flight request in the time between July 8 and July 9.
Izumi, you will not be familiar with the various options provided to those using the American Express service since you bought your tickets independently - and in this way personally benefited from an additional flexibility built into the system by the way - but the process which American Express outlined to all those who booked through it provided the following in two languages:
* Multiple itineraries sent * Option to call into the service, or send a telephone contact number and time to be contacted by an agent.
Which request Amex never followed up with a telephone call, nor an email indicating a call had failed or would not be made.
* Option to talk in person to an agent, or correspond in writing, in French, Spanish, or Portuguese if that was preferred to English.
I'm sure you'll agree that this represents a substantial step forward from the previous provider, who spoke only english, was only available during business hours Pacific Time, and didn't do calls out, relying on you calling in to her or by emailing her in English to resolve itineraries.
As for Alice's case, again, for some welathy people they can pay the cost first and they get reimbursed later. For some ordinary people representing the individuals users who volunteer the time etc working for non-profits, like Alice, from less developed countries, it may not be so easy. If the rule is uniform but flexible enough, I think we can find the mutual solution. But setting the policy in the last minutes, after 4 plus years of void (for new members, ALAC has not been given ANY written travel policy until the one we got a few weeks ago), and then implement it right away in non-compromising manner does not make sense to me.
On your first point: I have already brought up the issue with per-diems paid after the fact, and that ICANN needs to consider providing these up-front, especially for developing country attendees and where a person states a hardship would result otherwise. This is something that will continue to be discussed and I would suggest that you all feel free to make this point to Doug Brent in person at the ICANN meeting if you feel it is important. It is always helpful when my points in these respects are supported by the community.
It is worth stating that the previous reimbursement-based system was always payment of expenses after a meeting, so the time when payments are being made is the same now as it has been in the past.
As to flexibilities, I have already been contacted by one person for whom it will be a hardship if they do not receive an advance against, or actual payment of, their per-diem at the ICANN meeting, and I have already assured them that we can make this happen. So, the system is already flexible in this regard.
On your point that the the policy has been set as a last-minute thing, this is not the case. Most of what was provided in mid-May as the travel policy was actually the same as the travel guidance given out for the Lisbon meeting - so it has been largely in effect for several months. The only new elements in fact are:
1) A per-diem based system instead of a reimbursement-based system 2) A new travel provider - as previously stated, providing much more flexibility and more multilingual contact options than the previous travel provider.
There is nothing last-minute about this at all.
Correct me if I am wrong, and please provide good reasons why the new implemenation method should be kept that way.
I hope the above clarifies a number of points for you and for others, especially in respect of the American Express-provided service - since you didn't use the service this time you were clearly unaware of how it worked and I hope I've corrected a number of misconceptions that you clearly have about how it works.
As to your second point, frankly speaking, it is entirely within ICANN staff's purview to establish policies of an administrative nature such as travel unilaterally, as the money being spent is ICANN's money. Administrative policies like this do not require justification to you personally.
It is the responsibility of staff to ensure that all volunteers who receive travel support have available to them the most flexible system we can provide whilst also containing costs so the maximum number of volunteers can attend ICANN meetings. That is what we are doing. If you have suggestions on how things can be improved, I'm always happy to hear them, but it is the staff in the end who are responsible for the funds of ICANN and that will remain the case; it is therefore entirely within our remit to design policies related to the disbursement of funds, and we will continue to do so.
FYI, I am OK with the new per-diem style, and for that I have requested my organization to provide me the cash in advance in some quantity and then later make adjustment since it is not a simple single trip to ICANN Meeting, but I combined one with my own business to Europe. But I think that is a sort of exception and not represent the rest of ALAC.
In closing, I would love to hear of any other international organisation in the world who provides blanket access for an entire community to attend meetings like ICANN provides to At-Large. That commitment for the coming financial year is sufficient to cover 35 members of the community attending EACH International ICANN meeting this next year.
It is a continuing source of surprise to me that the community's comments on travel are almost always highly negative. There seems to be little time for an appreciation of the fact that ICANN provides representatives of this community an unparalleled opportunity to meet about topics at the heart of internet governance issues on a routine basis and completely subsidised.
I would hope that the community would look in a balanced view upon matters related to travel. I would hope that they would see the current initiatives, and large budget allocations, as what they are - a real and sustained effort to engage the At-Large community in the work of ICANN. Criticism is always welcomed, but it would be helpful if that criticism was also balanced - and, frankly, well-informed, and not based upon assumptions as so much of the above frankly is, but based upon a thoughtful review of the facts.
If anyone has a question about an issue - ask the question. You don't have to assume the answer in advance; contrary to what some of you seem to believe I actually care about this community and helping it become more and more influential in ICANN. I think the record of improvements that have been made in a very short time in so many areas of concern - travel reimbursement timelines, simplifying travel arrangements, reducing the forms required to attend meetings (you'll remember TARF forms? They're gone as you might have noticed), provision of greatly enhanced communications mechanisms, an open door for new ideas and ways of working, and advocacy of the community with others inside and outside of the staff.
If you think all of my efforts add up to an attempt to prevent participation as has been alleged, that's your right and privilege. I'm perfectly happy to be judged upon what I do, or don't do.
thanks,
izumi
among other things, I had wanted to add my concerns regarding the recent travel policies. Indeed, there has been a need to have a clear uniform travel policy for the ALAC, however, I do agree with Wendy. Some aspects of the new travel policy are indeed ridiculous and unacceptable. For example, there is provision for per diem system but the per diem is refunded after the event, how is that supposed to work? further, tickets being purchased through the new travel agency are not upgradeable. tickets that can be upgraded as well as timely communication regarding accommodation, should be minimum. ALAC members attend these meetings to work and it is unacceptable to have volunteers treated in this manner!
alice
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Unless ICANN has dealt with them by the call, I'd like to take 2 minutes to raise my concerns about ridiculous implementation of the new travel policies. So far, I've seen a use of process to exclude participation, which I'd hate to think was ICANN's intent in streamlining its policies.
--Wendy
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/