[NCUC-DISCUSS] CORRECTION - ICANN63 Travel Slots announcement

[farzaneh badii]

Dorothy and Ayden

NCUC EC never penalizes those who could not attend meetings because of visa
refusal. In fact it had a case of visa refusal in 2015 and it transferred
the slot to another meeting. But then no ticket was purchased and  nor
reimbursed.

It is very rare that people be allowed on planes if they don't have the
correct visa. If refusal upon entry happens despite the fact that the
traveler went through the appropriate visa process, submitted application
etc thenI think reimbursig them is fine and even if they apply again for
the next meeting they should be considered( though it will be costly on
NCUC).

But what would you do when the applicant makes a mistake and has purchased
the ticket? In that case I think they should be reimbursed but their slot
should not be transfered to the next meeting. Also NCUC does not have the
resources to help the applicant with visa processes but perhaps we can look
into seeing if the applicant can use the ICANN visa service.

On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 10:19 AM Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> I also believe that persons who are unable to use travel opportunities due
> to visa refusals should not be penalised and we should work this into our
> criteria.
>
>
> I agree with this. If our Operating Procedures are unclear on this point,
> I would suggest we revise them to clarify the intent (which I believe was
> to ensure a fair and equitable allocation and rotation of resources, and
> not to penalise those who find themselves unable to travel because of
> circumstances outside of their control).
>
> I still think a brief write-up is necessary for institutional memory.
>
>
> I too think this is important.
>
> We should learn from this.
>
> Ayden
>
> On 1 Sep 2018, at 08:25, dorothy g <dgdorothydg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for taking the time to respond.  I am glad Benjamin got a
> personalised apology. The 'personal reasons' I referred to were in Bruna's
> response to Wisdom and I assume referred to the reasons he (B) did not use
> his previous travel opportunity. I still think a brief write-up is
> necessary for institutional memory. I also believe that persons who are
> unable to use travel opportunities due to visa refusals should not be
> penalised and we should work this into our criteria. I accept that your
> explanation that this is not relevant to the current situation.
> Let me take this opportunity to express my appreciation for all of you who
> volunteer to keep this group on track. I know how much time it takes me
> just keeping up with the messages and information and most of us have day
> jobs as well. This is a blip we will get over it.
> best regards
> Dorothy
>
> On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 1:34 AM, Michael Karanicolas <
> mkaranicolas at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dorothy,
>>
>> You raise some very valid points, I think. In terms of the fact that
>> we were late to catch Benjamin's ineligibility - I think you are 100%
>> correct. I don't really have an excuse. As soon as someone mentioned
>> the eligibility issue, it seemed very obvious, and silly that we
>> hadn't caught it before - and I genuinely regret not realizing it
>> sooner. More than anything else, I think the way this unfolded was
>> very unfair to Benjamin. We've written directly to him apologizing -
>> and I think he has every right to be upset, because I know it sucks to
>> have that announcement go out and then get pulled back. At the same
>> time, I think the bylaws are clear, and while the first announcement
>> shouldn't have gone out, I think that once we realized he was
>> ineligible we had no choice in terms of his funding.
>>
>> In terms of the phrasing of "personal reasons" - I'm not 100% sure
>> which email you're referring to, as I can't find it in this chain, but
>> I believe it is our policy not to consider visa status in weighing a
>> travel application - precisely for the reasons you mention. Anyway -
>> Benjamin's visa status for Spain played no role in this discussion,
>> nor did Dina's status, or Shahul's, or any of the other applicants.
>>
>> Best wishes - and very happy to discuss this further, or answer any
>> further questions or concerns on what happened,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>
>
> --
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180902/33dc82a0/attachment.htm>