[NCUC-DISCUSS] CORRECTION - ICANN63 Travel Slots announcement

[Amr Elsadr]

I see. Thanks for that, Farzi. Understood.

Thanks again.

Amr

Sent from Mobile

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 10:00 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:

>  it was because NCUC EC decided to open the call for NCSG and npoc members for travel support since NCSG does not have the right infrastructure and allocation of resources yet. Funders want eventually NCSG take over distibuting of funds.
>
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 3:25 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> A quick question: Is there a reason why this, and other NCUC-related discussions are posted here on NCSG-DISCUSS? Wouldn’t it make more sense for them to be posted on NCUC-DISCUSS?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>> On Sep 2, 2018, at 4:52 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is just my personal perspective, but I tend to think we should use some discretion in cases like this. It happens very rarely, and while I don’t think the slot should be automatically transferred over to the next meeting, I think the EC should be able to do so if they think it is warranted (i.e. the member is still actively contributing and their chances of having a visa approved for the next destination are likely). Visas can be denied for very arbitrary reasons, and flights can increase in price rapidly closer to departure. Given the reimbursement allowance the NCUC offers is capped at $2,000 and this is expected to cover their visa, a flight, and their hotel for the duration of a meeting, I don’t think it is always an option to have someone wait until a visa is approved before they can book their flight.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Well, I think that is what happened here. An applicant could not travel to Panama because their visa was not approved, and they could not be considered for travel to Spain because they had been reimbursed the expenses that they had incurred as a result of attempting to travel to Panama. I am not saying they were penalised by the EC because of the visa refusal, however I do think that is what has happened in practice.
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>>> On 2 Sep 2018, at 16:39, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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
>
> --
>
> Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180903/7d33a271/attachment.htm>