|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I speak against the motion for the following reasons:
(1) It affords a privilege to one specific group not afforded to all attendees. Any policy that singles out "green card holders" and does not allow the same consideration to other attendees with concerns is unfair.
Under the IEEE ethical code we have a duty to treat all members fairly; we should extend that duty to all attendees, even if not IEEE members.
If we are to consider concerns over entry into the US as a reason for a full refund, we must apply it equally to any attendee. Other attendees, e.g. a holder of an H1-B who is traveling on a passport
issued by one of the 7 listed nations, have valid concerns and should be afforded equal considerations. Any attendee, regardless of nationality, may have fears (founded or otherwise) due to circumstances that change following registering that alter they're
desire to travel, and should be afforded equal consideration.
(2) it is factually inaccurate. Permanent residents ("green card holders") are not adversely affected by the presidential action referenced in the motion.
(3) "who believes" is an unverifiable requirement.
(4) I agree with Jon's point that if our goal is to inform attendees, there are more direct and effective means.
(5) I agree with Roger that if our goal is to inform attendees, we need expertise we do not have to ensure the information provided is correct.
Benjamin A. Rolfe, Blind Creek Associates
On 2/3/2017 10:01 AM, Jon Rosdahl wrote:
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.