Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: Hilton Prague)

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 25 March 2007 04:24 UTC

Return-path: <68attendees-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVKH9-0005Q2-8F; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:24:15 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVKH8-0005Pw-NH for 68attendees@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:24:14 -0400
Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVKH3-0002IX-MV for 68attendees@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:24:14 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1HVKH3-0003sn-7L; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:24:09 -0500
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:24:07 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <Jonne.Soininen@nokia.com>, 68attendees@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: Hilton Prague)
Message-ID: <4BF1E72894B84DD9198E34A9@[10.0.0.45]>
In-Reply-To: <C22B3189.3BF72%Jonne.Soininen@nokia.com>
References: <C22B3189.3BF72%Jonne.Soininen@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4
Cc:
X-BeenThere: 68attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for IETF 68 attendees." <68attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees>, <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/68attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:68attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees>, <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: 68attendees-bounces@ietf.org

Jonne,

--On Saturday, March 24, 2007 19:50 +0200 "Soininen Jonne 
(Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <Jonne.Soininen@nokia.com> wrote:

> John,
>
> Though as an allergic person I'm very sympathetic to the
> requirements you listed, I would like to give you a bit food
> for though: What is the standard of air quality / health risk
> we should compare to? For instance, Europe has banned gene
> manipulated food, and the use of growth hormones for domestic
> animals because of health risks. Should we then avoid
> countries whose standards are lesser because of health risks?
> What about outside air quality and smog? And mercury levels in
> the locally available fish?

I didn't want to write an even longer essay but, as Randy 
pointed out, I tried to cover those issues in my note. 
Short-term exposure to things that might shorten life expectancy 
with long-term exposure doesn't make a hard exclusion criterion 
for me.  Holding a meeting in a badly polluted city but in a 
facility that takes "non smoking" sufficiently seriously to use 
high-quality filters on air conditioning and positive pressure 
arrangements is, I think, acceptable (even if I have to take 
special precautions to get to the facility and can't leave it 
all week).

For me, what all of these discussions have been about is that I 
expect the community to give the IASA guidance and I expect the 
IASA to follow that guidance to the extent possible.  I also 
expect the IASA to make tradeoffs and exercise judgment.  If the 
consequent decisions deviate significantly from the community 
guidance I expect the IAD or IAOC to explain those decisions and 
deviations --after the fact if necessary-- and to listen for 
additional guidance from the community (applying to future 
decisions) if it arrives.   That is all.  I don't think it is 
necessary or reasonable to impose air pollution maximum 
requirements in grams per liter of various particulate sizes.  I 
do believe that, if the IASA is given some "no smoking" or "few 
people getting shot in the streets" guidance, that site visits 
will exercise some care to  be sure those guidelines are being 
adhered to, rather than, e.g., accepting a hotel press release 
as sufficient.

And, as part of that, I expect the IASA to give the community 
feedback about what guidance it thinks it is getting and what 
general criteria it is going to consider so that we can check 
for synchronization and mutual understanding.   I hope you agree.

> There are many risks to travelling in general. In addition,
> you are exposed to different health risks in foreign countries
> than at home, or different levels of the same risks.
>
> If the IETF should take these risks into account we should
> consider what is the standard to compare against. I'm not sure
> who could make that assessment and which criteria should be
> used.

I hope you are not proposing to use the argument that absolute 
criteria are too hard so we should do nothing ... or that the 
IASA can and should ignore community guidance when no such 
criteria are specified and agreed to.

regards,
       john


_______________________________________________
68ATTENDEES mailing list
68ATTENDEES@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees