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. 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? 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. Correct me if I am wrong, and please provide good reasons why the new implemenation method should be kept that way. 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. 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

people from "unusual" locations which require call-outs (and seemingly no mechanism to know that they have dropped and need to be re-called).

I think that we should outlaw the use of Skype and equivalent, and strongly discourage mobile phones unless absolutely necessary. If mobile phones are discouraged then most of us will never be able to participate in any teleconference. Please let us not forget that some of us come from countries where fixed reliable telephony has been a failure and as a result we rely on our mobile phone lines/numbers.

alice

i have been participating in different teleconferences in ICANN specially ccNSO were most of the participants required call-outs to mobile phones and we did not have such problems facing ALAC teleconferences. Mobile phones is not the main problem, and i can assume most of use are coming from "unusual" locations as well where toll free numbers dose not exist . Regards, Mohamed Alan Greenberg wrote:

I think "no fixed reliable telephone available" meets my criteria of "absolutely necessary". ;-)

My intent was to recognize that a sizable number of our problems have been caused by mobile phones....

At 12/06/2007 02:47 PM, alice wrote:

...

...

people from "unusual" locations which require call-outs (and seemingly no mechanism to know that they have dropped and need to be re-called).

I think that we should outlaw the use of Skype and equivalent, and strongly discourage mobile phones unless absolutely necessary.

If mobile phones are discouraged then most of us will never be able to participate in any teleconference. Please let us not forget that some of us come from countries where fixed reliable telephony has been a failure and as a result we rely on our mobile phone lines/numbers.

alice

_______________________________________________ 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

-- Best Regards, Mohamed El Bashir President, Sudan Internet Society .SD Domain Name Registry Vice President, Communications & Out-Reach "African Top Level Domains Organization-AfTLD" ICANN ccNSO Council Member ICANN ALAC Committee Member Personal Web : www.mbash.net ""Life lies not in never falling, but in rising when you fall." Nelson Mandela 1995, Easten Cape.

Jacqueline A. Morris ha scritto:

Interruptions are also a problem – it was brought to my attention that yesterday I interrupted Izumi, (sorry Izumi) but I didn’t hear him speaking and thought he had finished. On the other hand, there was a 6 person at one time discussion for a little while about Wendy’s travel issue before I managed to break it up. Is there any way for us to do the in person “hand raise” to indicate that we want to speak - on a teleconference?

The Board has a jabber room so that people can IM Vint to ask for the floor while the call it's running. It doesn't work for me (because, unless I use Skype, my fixed line is so poor that it drops the DSL connection when making voice calls) but it's a nice idea if many people are connected while calling. For the rest, what I discovered when chairing is that it is useful to identify in advance which agenda items require a decision, and which do not. Those that do not, should have a preallocated time (as short as possible) and the discussion should be ruthlessly closed when it expires. Those that do, should have motions already on the table so that, when the preallocated time expires, a vote is called. If the agenda is published in advance, people have time to object and sort out procedural and drafting issues with any proposed issues in advance. OTOH, we've always had a problem in that we have too many things that we need to discuss. Reducing too much the number of topics per call is impossible - we would quickly build a backlog of leftover items, which in the end would clutter our physical meetings even more. But what we could do is to be as selective as possible as to what really needs discussion in a collective meeting; everything which is not a Committee decision item should be deferred to the Chair and staff or to volunteers. Finally, we should not revisit decisions and topics again and again. I can't remember how many times we have reopened discussions on the rules of procedure - I think that this is the fourth or fifth one... From the outside, sometimes it looks like we are unable to conduct our business and make good use not just of our own voluntary time, but of the human and monetary resources that are allocated to us by ICANN. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

Vittorio: a chat room to help the meeting chair organize the speaking order. A great idea. Would be good to facilitate not only Face to Face meetings, but also those done via teleconference. Nick, might it be possible to setup an at-large chat room by san juan? if it's not possible, an alternative idea would be to use an irc chat channel. #icann on irc.freenode.org is used often during icann meetings by attendees. perhaps we could setup #icann-at-large ? regards, Robert On 13-Jun-07, at 10:43 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

If an At-Large or committee jabber room would be helpful, I can certainly get one setup for us to use.

On 13 Jun 2007, at 15:22, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

Hong, I agree that Skype should not be excluded, on the contrary we can try to use it in the most efficient way ... This morning I had some complains from the Project Partners, who were trying to call me at my office, and they could not - the phone line was busy for almost 3 hours. At the same time, I have disconected my mobile so that I am not disturbed ... So, based on my first experience in a teleconference meeting, I think we should explore other options as well. Veronica ----- Original Message ----- From: Hong Xue To: Alan Greenberg Cc: At-Large writ small Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Teleconference facility (was: Add to agenda forteleconf...) On 6/12/07, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: The GNSO uses the same teleconference facility. I would guess that the GNSO e-mails include specific times because the GNSO staff put them there, not because of the service provider. The GNSO conferences work relatively well most of the time, and with FAR more people participating. I suspect that part of the issue is that we have more people from "unusual" locations which require call-outs (and seemingly no mechanism to know that they have dropped and need to be re-called). I think that we should outlaw the use of Skype and equivalent, and strongly discourage mobile phones unless absolutely necessary. I don't believe that Skype should be excluded, but it should be better commodated by the service operator to resolve the problem of echoing. As for mobile, I don't like using it at all for the cast is very high. However, what if a participant (such as me) is so poor that she has no fix-line phone? Hong At 12/06/2007 01:16 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:

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.

_______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 11.06.2007 17:10

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. 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. 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. 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. * 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

-- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

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/

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.

Hi Annette You are a bit behind on the emails on this - Wendy and Nick have been communicating on the issue and will probably have a resolution in a short while. The per diem has been organised - email went out to all already. There is discussion with ICANN on the other travel issues - it should all be sorted soon. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Annette Muehlberg [mailto:annette.muehlberg@web.de] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 5:24 AM To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Travel Policy 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

_______________________________________________ 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.16/849 - Release Date: 6/14/2007 12:44 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.16/849 - Release Date: 6/14/2007 12:44 PM

Well - we've talked, I've been as persuasive as I can, and I'm hoping that the ticket will come through - it's been a lot of back and forth. Please please next time try to get the ticket booked and ticketed early! :) Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:01 AM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: 'Annette Muehlberg'; 'Nick Ashton-Hart'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] Travel Policy I'm glad to hear your confidence! I hope it's resolved soon. --Wendy Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:

Hi Annette You are a bit behind on the emails on this - Wendy and Nick have been communicating on the issue and will probably have a resolution in a short while. The per diem has been organised - email went out to all already. There is discussion with ICANN on the other travel issues - it should all be sorted soon. Jacqueline

-----Original Message----- From: Annette Muehlberg [mailto:annette.muehlberg@web.de] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 5:24 AM To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Travel Policy

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

_______________________________________________ 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

No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.16/849 - Release Date: 6/14/2007 12:44 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.16/849 - Release Date: 6/14/2007 12:44 PM

_______________________________________________ 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/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.16/849 - Release Date: 6/14/2007 12:44 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.16/849 - Release Date: 6/14/2007 12:44 PM

2007/6/13, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:

However, this is a new system and there will be kinks - I don't think that any of this is part of a nefarious plot to prevent participation. Rather, the whole new system is part of the plan to be able to handle more and more AtLarge participation. Can you imagine the admin overhead of a reimbursement system if we have 100 AtLarge ALS reps attending a meeting? Or ICANN paying 100 different travel agencies for the same 100 travellers?

I think bringing the extreme case counter-argument is not productive, Jacqueline. What I would see as a pragmatic solution is, for those who can abide with the standard system, like per-diem, it can be the default. So maybe out of 100 ALSes, 60 may accept that and 40 may go differently. Which is still far better than all 100 individual handling. What Alice is saying is more on per-diem, not the travel agency arrangement. Mixing the two different issues may also not be productive. I have organized some regional meetings in Tokyo for WSIS and supported some 40 people for travel fellowship and visa and all arrangements, actually twice. I understand what kind of burden ICANN staff and travel agent have. But that is part of work and good system and experience with learning and cooperation will help. I hope that will be the case here, too. izumi

So I would urge patience and to work with Nick to get to San Juan. Jacqueline

-----Original Message----- From: alice [mailto:alice@apc.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:56 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: At-Large writ small Subject: Re: [At-Large] Add to agenda for teleconf: travel policy to exclude participation

Was not called for the teleconference at all today so missed it entirely!

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

No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

_______________________________________________ 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

-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

Hi Alice The hotel info was sent a while ago - we are staying at the Caribe Hilton. The address info is on the local host website. For visas - the invitation letter was available quite a while ago as well. I totally agree that the new travel system is not being implemented that well and that is probably because it is being implemented too quickly. That is the problem IMO. Everything should have been worked out in detail before it was changed over. And that is why I think per diems are to be refunded after the event - they haven't as yet worked out how to give them out before! The revised policy is clear that it is supposed to be received before or at the meeting. Tickets are the cheapest possible economy unless you have asked for and received permission in advance for changes - they will pay for upgradeable tickets if you ask and get approval in advance and this is communicated to the travel agent. This was told us before Lisbon. BUT that said - the point is that we need to get everything sorted to get there, and everyone with problems needs to talk to the travel staff as soon as possible to get these issues sorted out. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: alice [mailto:alice@apc.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 2:09 PM To: Izumi AIZU Cc: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; Wendy Seltzer; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Add to agenda for teleconf: travel policy to exclude participation Thanks Izumi and Jacqueline. Agree with Izumi. Lets not mix the two and more of the issues arising from this new policy. To begin with there should have been a respectable transition period given for implementing it. Regarding the per diem and difficulties in arranging travel for many participants, I think we have all involved in organising huge multi stakeholder type of conferences and understand the challenges. But this does not explain why for example, tickets cannot be upgraded or per diems are re-funded after the event. Some of us can of course get our organisations to give us an imprest, but still does not help for people who are not able to do this. Another concern is of course accommodation arrangements for some people who need this information for visa processing it is quite an issue to wait until the last few days. regards alice Izumi AIZU wrote:

2007/6/13, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:

...

However, this is a new system and there will be kinks - I don't think that any of this is part of a nefarious plot to prevent participation. Rather, the whole new system is part of the plan to be able to handle more and more AtLarge participation. Can you imagine the admin overhead of a reimbursement system if we have 100 AtLarge ALS reps attending a meeting? Or ICANN paying 100 different travel agencies for the same 100 travellers?

I think bringing the extreme case counter-argument is not productive, Jacqueline.

What I would see as a pragmatic solution is, for those who can abide with the standard system, like per-diem, it can be the default.

So maybe out of 100 ALSes, 60 may accept that and 40 may go differently. Which is still far better than all 100 individual handling.

What Alice is saying is more on per-diem, not the travel agency arrangement. Mixing the two different issues may also not be productive.

I have organized some regional meetings in Tokyo for WSIS and supported some 40 people for travel fellowship and visa and all arrangements, actually twice. I understand what kind of burden ICANN staff and travel agent have. But that is part of work and good system and experience with learning and cooperation will help. I hope that will be the case here, too.

izumi

...

So I would urge patience and to work with Nick to get to San Juan. Jacqueline

-----Original Message----- From: alice [mailto:alice@apc.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:56 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: At-Large writ small Subject: Re: [At-Large] Add to agenda for teleconf: travel policy to exclude participation

Was not called for the teleconference at all today so missed it entirely!

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

No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

_______________________________________________ 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

No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

Hi Izumi 100 ALS members at one meeting isn't an extreme counter case - it was discussed in the teleconference today as a suggestion brought up by Sebastién for the October meeting. I AGREED with Alice about the per diem. I'm one of the poor ones who cannot easily find $800 US in a couple of weeks. I've already brought it up as a problem with the travel staff. However, the UN uses this system, and a lot of orgs follow the UN system with regard to travel. I disagree that we could have multiple systems that people could pick from - that's a recipe for disaster - per diem is perfectly reasonable and applied in a lot of organizations worldwide; the requirement to use one travel agency is not a major hardship given that it is a large, multilingual international agency. People can use a different agency, with permission from ICANN in advance. That's in the policy! The problem is the implementation in a short timeframe of a whole new travel system. There will be bugs. I've addressed the two items of Alice's email separately. The question about upgradeable tickets was addressed - if you want it and it isn't more expensive, you ask for and get permission from ICANN. Similarly if you have other travel issues. People get adjustments all the time. Those who have problems (including myself) need to talk to the travel staff and get them sorted out. It isn't a conspiracy, it isn't a major drama, it isn't something that is designed to screw ALAC as opposed to everyone else. It's an administrative issue - some bugs with the implementation of a new system in a short period of time. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:iza@anr.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:47 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: alice; Wendy Seltzer; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Add to agenda for teleconf: travel policy to exclude participation 2007/6/13, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:

However, this is a new system and there will be kinks - I don't think that any of this is part of a nefarious plot to prevent participation. Rather, the whole new system is part of the plan to be able to handle more and more AtLarge participation. Can you imagine the admin overhead of a reimbursement system if we have 100 AtLarge ALS reps attending a meeting? Or ICANN paying 100 different travel agencies for the same 100 travellers?

I think bringing the extreme case counter-argument is not productive, Jacqueline. What I would see as a pragmatic solution is, for those who can abide with the standard system, like per-diem, it can be the default. So maybe out of 100 ALSes, 60 may accept that and 40 may go differently. Which is still far better than all 100 individual handling. What Alice is saying is more on per-diem, not the travel agency arrangement. Mixing the two different issues may also not be productive. I have organized some regional meetings in Tokyo for WSIS and supported some 40 people for travel fellowship and visa and all arrangements, actually twice. I understand what kind of burden ICANN staff and travel agent have. But that is part of work and good system and experience with learning and cooperation will help. I hope that will be the case here, too. izumi

So I would urge patience and to work with Nick to get to San Juan. Jacqueline

-----Original Message----- From: alice [mailto:alice@apc.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:56 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: At-Large writ small Subject: Re: [At-Large] Add to agenda for teleconf: travel policy to exclude participation

Was not called for the teleconference at all today so missed it entirely!

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

No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

_______________________________________________ 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

-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

I think ALAC needs to consider separate policies for ALS travelling to their regional meeting and committee members who travel (mostly) much further, more often and have more work to do once at the meeting. Separate polices for both expense reimbursement and travel. Upgradeable economy fare is appropriate for committee members (in my opinion it should be for all staff and board, imagine how many extra people could be brought on fellowships, 100? ICANN is unusual in it's treatment of staff in particular, few firms fly business class these days -- though good luck to anyone who can negotiate that in their employment contract :-) The slightly higher economy fare (in my experience a few hundred dollars) means of course the opportunity to upgrade, but also on many frequent flyer programs it also means the chance to use economy premium seats, etc. Just an inch or two, but it's nice. The combination of tightening the arrival and departure dates and this lowest cost economy for committee members is a false economy, and I think also looks insulting. That it is not adequately documented and introduced somewhat out of the blue is also typical. Sticking on a Nominating Committee hat: Please treat volunteers with respect. They are hard to find. (hat off.) Thanks, Adam At 9:48 AM +0200 6/13/07, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:

I AGREED with Alice about the per diem. I'm one of the poor ones who cannot easily find $800 US in a couple of weeks. I've already brought it up as a problem with the travel staff. However, the UN uses this system, and a lot of orgs follow the UN system with regard to travel.  

My company uses the UN system.

There is nothing that prevents advance payment of at least a certain percentage of the per-diem. Since we will all be in the same location, it could be done in cash in the local currency upon arrival (unless staff tells me that this is unfeasible ofr sume reason, like currency regulations of the host country). There should be no problem in implementing this in Los Angeles in October, for instance.

Cheers,

Roberto

_______________________________________________ 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

For the information of everyone: ALAC members are already allowed to book upgradeable economy flights. This was what American Express was told this time around. There is also a way for applications to be made for business class flights for medical/good reasons like that - there are members who do use these flexibilities. If that DIDN'T happen I'd like to know the situation. As I told everyone in the community: this is the first time we've used this travel provider. Using them provides many benefits, such as: multilingual reservations staff longer hours of access to agents the ability to be called back at any number of the traveller's choice to make arrangements HOWEVER, this was the first time out of the gate and everyone can help make it better by telling me what you think of the service, and of anything that didn't go as you think it should have. On 13 Jun 2007, at 12:15, Adam Peake wrote:

I think ALAC needs to consider separate policies for ALS travelling to their regional meeting and committee members who travel (mostly) much further, more often and have more work to do once at the meeting. Separate polices for both expense reimbursement and travel.

Upgradeable economy fare is appropriate for committee members (in my opinion it should be for all staff and board, imagine how many extra people could be brought on fellowships, 100? ICANN is unusual in it's treatment of staff in particular, few firms fly business class these days -- though good luck to anyone who can negotiate that in their employment contract :-)

The slightly higher economy fare (in my experience a few hundred dollars) means of course the opportunity to upgrade, but also on many frequent flyer programs it also means the chance to use economy premium seats, etc. Just an inch or two, but it's nice.

The combination of tightening the arrival and departure dates and this lowest cost economy for committee members is a false economy, and I think also looks insulting. That it is not adequately documented and introduced somewhat out of the blue is also typical.

Sticking on a Nominating Committee hat:

Please treat volunteers with respect. They are hard to find.

(hat off.)

Thanks,

Adam

At 9:48 AM +0200 6/13/07, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

...

Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:

I AGREED with Alice about the per diem. I'm one of the poor ones who cannot easily find $800 US in a couple of weeks. I've already brought it up as a problem with the travel staff. However, the UN uses this system, and a lot of orgs follow the UN system with regard to travel.

My company uses the UN system.

There is nothing that prevents advance payment of at least a certain percentage of the per-diem. Since we will all be in the same location, it could be done in cash in the local currency upon arrival (unless staff tells me that this is unfeasible ofr sume reason, like currency regulations of the host country). There should be no problem in implementing this in Los Angeles in October, for instance.

Cheers,

Roberto

_______________________________________________ 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

There should be no problem in San Juan either. I don't know why unless it is that they haven't finished setting up the system for managing per diem. But it's quite easy - set up a room, have the US cash, let everyone line up and sign a receipt for the $$. Should not be hard at all. It's much more difficult to run the bank transfer process, sending funds to multiple countries etc. Jacqueline From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:49 AM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; 'Izumi AIZU' Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: RE: [At-Large] Add to agenda for teleconf: travel policy to excludeparticipation Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: I AGREED with Alice about the per diem. I'm one of the poor ones who cannot easily find $800 US in a couple of weeks. I've already brought it up as a problem with the travel staff. However, the UN uses this system, and a lot of orgs follow the UN system with regard to travel. My company uses the UN system. There is nothing that prevents advance payment of at least a certain percentage of the per-diem. Since we will all be in the same location, it could be done in cash in the local currency upon arrival (unless staff tells me that this is unfeasible ofr sume reason, like currency regulations of the host country). There should be no problem in implementing this in Los Angeles in October, for instance. Cheers, Roberto No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

Implementing the per diem now means that everyone has much less paperwork to deal with - participants do not have to collect and keep receipts, and indeed can even put through their per-diem forms now, so that they can be approved and paid much more quickly than if you have to wait until you get home, fill in and send off the forms, etc. It is not that the system wasn't ready, it is that a judgment was made to pay after the fact, instead of before, for this meeting, with that decision to be reviewed between the end of this meeting and the next. I hope this helps. On 13 Jun 2007, at 19:59, alice wrote:

Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:

...

There should be no problem in San Juan either. I don't know why unless it is that they haven't finished setting up the system for managing per diem. But it's quite easy - set up a room, have the US cash, let everyone line up and sign a receipt for the $$. Should not be hard at all. It's much more difficult to run the bank transfer process, sending funds to multiple countries etc.

Agree. And I have no problem with the per diem policy. Suggestion: if the system for managing per diem is not ready for San Juan, why not let the old system run until ICANN is ready to implement the new?

alice

...

_______________________________________________ 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

For the avoidance of doubt, we are not now, nor will we, end up with a system in which people can decide whether or not to follow travel policies. That's not an option. We are not going to end up with some people on per-diems, some on reimbursement, some buying tickets independently all the time, some using travel agents. That's simply not sustainable. You have all been provided with the current travel policy. If you have constructive criticism, or proposals to improve it, I'm absolutely keen to hear that. What isn't helpful is hyperbole or accusations of deliberate misapplication to attempt to prevent participation. If ICANN were interested in preventing participation, ICANN wouldn't be funding 35 members of the community to attend EACH International Meeting. I would hope that the very obvious considerable commitment to At-Large participation represented by such comprehensive travel funding would be something that would be widely admired. If that is the case, I must tell you that it is completely absent from the many recent postings related to travel. On 12 Jun 2007, at 18:46, Izumi AIZU wrote:

2007/6/13, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:

...

However, this is a new system and there will be kinks - I don't think that any of this is part of a nefarious plot to prevent participation. Rather, the whole new system is part of the plan to be able to handle more and more AtLarge participation. Can you imagine the admin overhead of a reimbursement system if we have 100 AtLarge ALS reps attending a meeting? Or ICANN paying 100 different travel agencies for the same 100 travellers?

I think bringing the extreme case counter-argument is not productive, Jacqueline.

What I would see as a pragmatic solution is, for those who can abide with the standard system, like per-diem, it can be the default.

So maybe out of 100 ALSes, 60 may accept that and 40 may go differently. Which is still far better than all 100 individual handling.

What Alice is saying is more on per-diem, not the travel agency arrangement. Mixing the two different issues may also not be productive.

I have organized some regional meetings in Tokyo for WSIS and supported some 40 people for travel fellowship and visa and all arrangements, actually twice. I understand what kind of burden ICANN staff and travel agent have. But that is part of work and good system and experience with learning and cooperation will help. I hope that will be the case here, too.

izumi

...

So I would urge patience and to work with Nick to get to San Juan. Jacqueline

-----Original Message----- From: alice [mailto:alice@apc.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:56 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: At-Large writ small Subject: Re: [At-Large] Add to agenda for teleconf: travel policy to exclude participation

Was not called for the teleconference at all today so missed it entirely!

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

No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

_______________________________________________ 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

--

...

...

Izumi Aizu <<

Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.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