[NCUC-DISCUSS] Visas [was NomCom public meeting, Wednesday]

[William Drake]

Hi

> On Mar 9, 2016, at 17:46, Peter Green <seekcommunications at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Cannot agree more here. 
> 
> I propose we, as non-commercial part of the community, make ICANN to prioritize this issue. 

Makes sense to me, some of us have raised this repeatedly in Council and elsewhere over the years without getting anywhere, so an organized push is probably needed.  I imagine this might be more effective if done in partnership with At Large, the members of which encounter these issues as well.  Produce a document for submission to the Board, as well as to Constituency Travel (which I recall was talking about increase staff resources on this, don’t know what happened).
> 
> Saying so, I further propose that ICANN could have a specific logo on the invitation letter which will serve as a sign or alert for the embassies to place ICANN Meeting visa applications to a more emergent level than tour and some other purposes of visa.

Interesting idea

Cheers

Bill
> 
> My two cents.
> 
> Best Regards
> Zuan/Peter
> ���: Ncuc-discuss <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org>> �� DeeDee Halleck <deedeehalleck at gmail.com <mailto:deedeehalleck at gmail.com>>
> ���ʱ��: 2016��3��9�� 22:08
> �ռ���: William Drake
> ���: NCUC-discuss
> ���: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom public meeting, Wednesday
>  
> To insure diverse representation we should speak up for strong Visa assistance. We cannot expect the commercial or the tech or the government sectors to care about this.ICANN staff must be delegated to address VISA issues. Urging this is well within our moral obligations to broaden global participation. If not us, who?
> 
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:01 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
> Hi
> 
>> On Mar 9, 2016, at 12:14, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thank you Bill for asking my question. 
>> 
>> I think the person in charge argued that they in NomCom did not have many visa issues ??? Well why would you have a Sub-Committee on visa then ! It is beyond me. 
> 
> To determine whether we did, I guess.
>> 
>> I don't care if this was a subcommittee only on nomcom visa issues and they  didnt have to ask the community. I wanted to see how they functioned and what was the result because it is an issue that affects us all.
> 
> I chaired a different subcom and wasn�t on this one so am not sure, you could ask Hartmut. I suspect they determined that members faced no problems, and shut down.  I�m not sure how this affects anyone other than the people involved.  NomCom has no role in anything than the work of the NomCom.
>> 
>> What I was trying to get at is: Tackling visa issues should be a joint effort . If not, we cannot tackle it. If they had a sub-committee on visa issues and then the result was : oh visa is beyond our control! then it is gonna affect others in the community who are working to resolve the issue! It is very careless! I received an email from another community member asking me : have you worked with these guys, what are their solutions ?
> 
> The NomCom has zero role in anything pertaining to the community�s travel arrangements.  So I am hard pressed to understand how it  not doing something that is miles outs its remit can rationally be called careless.  But your concerns have been conveyed to the Chair.
> 
> Bill
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160310/79c8c664/attachment-0002.html>