Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 31 January 2017 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
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 226C1129E72 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 04:42:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 gQqG6uBLzVvT for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 04:42:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 874A7129993 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 04:42:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id r141so77600769wmg.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 04:42:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xoK77m2n439H66ch64m0sXxnemkyv2AOwkXZLzaAtjY=; b=oRNfg/f862QOVrkwWEFbDaspMEnpRxyNlzYLHf2EL5KFKRQG1ls+981vsS1IvfhOyy NB9BTT0YeuGJjT8N78TMJZchYdQfzkvTNYD19JeRJ36exaZTHX8JXdvlkjhxMMBZMw3s 52mzpMW3gF4AB53nQB4b7wdKd6H0K4cpw8NbGzg3ARkGyzRSMyJb04MivzA6baedyuj6 cwLDqBL66+mJ8x0YUBgv1+Ar6CS5EhbHj14m9FmO1YkM9gxyjaAPS66TT+XZyE0W+abC WQt1beskrjGaZWE4bODWM/BncqQEAKkmscwcsYND6jsa5rQN++TGW3LgDMCGFW8KMOmw uQKg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xoK77m2n439H66ch64m0sXxnemkyv2AOwkXZLzaAtjY=; b=Ggap34zu7VBBnmTUP0meNcYI7HRyIvE1Iiskb7abgeH+CO9BEuet1SEFgX91lHuFyL BGSWNYxsbUJyWw9Sf8npoUG+VNktCRDLSDWClgLuKP9gmbl9FyY3HGSqOxUyWy47H9hg VpCKy4G33Y4KrWzIuzxbZ30rU4AB79ghIN3CN1cYoamLX6wPsC2/N7EkLQjesnnUtSwd ezItr4UgTPpTfTGFmw3MtbcpIzD8vTkeTbB9eBvegW0JhDEUnsiduswWV7LmwJcR4csc 0ghLZQloZOmkhMq+dH8rugrx1m7cHvSZHLq9WwQuMT6Wuve8A6R1doZbnMQ4yaTgk1qK D9tA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJi72kE6sLzTbbJQY+cIr3DpF4+HdzthyH8P47Ctr8gYbGEm7xFjFVkQiPIQgqYVQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.100.132 with SMTP id y126mr18138960wmb.116.1485866519669; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 04:41:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.24.248.201] (dyn32-131.checkpoint.com. [194.29.32.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s17sm28192413wrc.6.2017.01.31.04.41.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 31 Jan 2017 04:41:59 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2A1F5023-F0E8-4312-945C-88E8B0795DAE@consulintel.es>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:41:56 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A965E752-158F-41FF-BB7E-EA4203F346F0@gmail.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> <955df2106aa2e12cefbd450be022e779.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <D36D49EE.35116%jefft0@remap.ucla.edu> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B05266663BF@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <CA+ruDECdMAC2PQqibqQijc-nLHUxOGw0h-ZYyh8FnZZaeZ8sTA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+ruDEBHyzk5cg5Vmq-anKJTxLkZpHrb9APwkfbDGn6FeFzR_w@mail.gmail.com> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B052BD4B85D@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <A0BBD037-851F-4F47-A7F2-44EFC73166AD@consulintel.es> <CAEjQQ5Wbxi0_fEVf3uh1_K=o02KK11jRgGhdpeiBhAojhtt76g@mail.gmail.com> <2A1F5023-F0E8-4312-945C-88E8B0795DAE@consulintel.es>
To: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/98fe1KWz6onf-UdoO98f0fJu6Lo>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:42:03 -0000

> On 31 Jan 2017, at 11:56, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
> 
> I was referring in general, not a specific meeting.
> 
> For the 2018 SF meeting, I will buy my ticket around July-August 2017. I always do one year in advance, same for the hotel if I can book a cheaper nearby (to the venue) hotel.

I’m pretty sure you’re in a minority doing that. I can’t even get the OK for making the trip more than 4 months in advance.

> Most of the airlines, according to my experience, sell lower price non-refundable tickets 11-12 months ahead.

Buying non-refundable tickets is your choice. I don’t see why it needs to become a cost for the IETF (whether through refunding or through insurance). My employer (and I’m sure many others) only buys refundable tickets so they are free to cancel my trip on short notice.

> So, we should rule something in the line that an IETF cancellation insurance must cover the expenses of bookings for that. If we can’t cover that, we MUST NOT cancel a meeting,

“MUST NOT”?  What if Earth’s youngest volcano is standing where the venue used to be? Still MUST NOT? San Francisco is always at risk of an earthquake. It doesn’t even have to be “the big one” to make it impossible to meet. Still MUST NOT?  And the eastern US has hurricanes, Europe has frosts and Japan has Kaiju. Do we still meet?

> otherwise, the participants that made that expense, have the legal right to claim to the ISOC/IETF the associated expenses, and I’m sure they will get it, if a court is involved.

Meeting fee? Probably. Travel expenses? I doubt it.

> This brings to the idea that, when we select countries for hosting the IETF, we should consider, political changes that may affect participants. Of course, we don’t have the crystal ball, but in the case of actual US situation, I think the chances were so high, that we made a mistake going to Chicago. As it may affect a significant % of participants.

I don’t think this was at all predictable.

> Now, we have, depending on the contract signed for SF, the chance to move that meeting, but only if we do it right now, not in 6 months from now, as that will impact people that may have already booked flights and hotels.

I don’t think our meetings committee should be constrained like that. There might be some guidance to be given by mtgvenue for this, but I don’t think that this should be a considerations if changes are made at least 6 months in advance.

Yoav