IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: privacy and IETF meetings in US

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 07 June 2019 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED91F1200F9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.44
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.44 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UU82M-4D76b7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 11:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [209.87.249.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB5B21200D6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 11:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13D6D3818D; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 14:28:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id CEC68F2A; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 14:29:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC249AA; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 14:29:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: privacy and IETF meetings in US
In-Reply-To: <5f314b9b-d922-8d47-a913-a7e58aef98ec@gmail.com>
References: <5B42C40D-50EF-4D56-8661-BFA8FF107426@consulintel.es> <33839E7AE337BD20319D6BF0@PSB> <8989A94D-FDA7-40E3-BE4B-023DA221BD7C@consulintel.es> <5f314b9b-d922-8d47-a913-a7e58aef98ec@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 14:29:32 -0400
Message-ID: <13164.1559932172@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7wWD7LzQlKo9oc4FX4kATxUGPNw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 18:29:36 -0000

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On 6/7/19 8:24 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
    >> What I'm suggesting is that regardless of our decision on the
    >> meetings in US, we as IETF consider this as something acceptable?

    > IETF 102 was scheduled to be in SF but moved to Montreal.  I
    > think it's too soon to know what the situation is going to be
    > in 2021.

But, it cost like $160K(%) to cancel, and we should have thought about whether
or not to move IETF111 at the same time.

I want to point out to Klensin and others that the difficulties with getting
a timely VISA to the US started prior to 2016.


(%)-actually, we (ISOC) have a credit that we can spend on a new reservation
    as long as we book prior to August 2020, for something that is
    prior to 2030 or something like that.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email