<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Friends,</p>
<p>I disagree - living in a sometimes affected country.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 31.1.2017 7:10 AM, Ayden Férdeline
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:GpBAkM0JQpwA0k7xG4It25UKEphTV0o_Gj1BahDI6EzcXJU8uENL3eKvm71SrbVZPbhT0dIMRMoBj8ZdjBNo-5yzuh45Z0R87c9Y6CFfOx4=@ferdeline.com"
type="cite">
<div>. But it <i>might</i> be a disproportionate response to move
a meeting because not all delegates will qualify for a visa to
enter the host country. I realise how upsetting this situation
must be for those who are impacted and unable to travel to a
location. But moving meetings to a different country isn't
necessarily a solution. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
So if this is not a solution - what is one?<br>
<br>
Or is excluding some members some time a solution? (For example for
90 days - I use this number, considering the exclusion of some
people with valid US visa to travel to the USA at present.) <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:GpBAkM0JQpwA0k7xG4It25UKEphTV0o_Gj1BahDI6EzcXJU8uENL3eKvm71SrbVZPbhT0dIMRMoBj8ZdjBNo-5yzuh45Z0R87c9Y6CFfOx4=@ferdeline.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>That being said, I sometimes worry we spend far too much
time discussing travel, travel arrangements, and meeting
locations, at the detriment of policy work. (And to be very
clear, I am not directing this comment at you, Ed, but at the
wider ICANN community.)<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes and no - I agree that policy work is very important. Once there
would be an agreement how to select or exclude some travel related
issues (and not discuss it again and again without a clear
perspective and decision), there would be more time available for
policy.<br>
<br>
Norbert Klein<br>
in Cambodia<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>