[NCUC-DISCUSS] CORRECTION - ICANN63 Travel Slots announcement

[dorothy g]

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20180901/e9f8df8e/attachment.html>