IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Next steps towards a net zero IETF

Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live555.com> Tue, 21 March 2023 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <finlayson@live555.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 6972EC14CF1E; Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Yd7Sl34eNQ9; Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us.live555.com (us.live555.com [52.8.240.222]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C42CC14CF1A; Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (localhost.live555.com [IPv6:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1]) by us.live555.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTP id 32LLrppE085302; Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:53:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from finlayson@live555.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.400.51.1.1\))
Subject: Re: Next steps towards a net zero IETF
From: Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live555.com>
In-Reply-To: <02F23373-9F6A-420E-91B3-C1ADE5AF2A60@staff.ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 10:53:41 +1300
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9E0F20AE-11BC-4CFC-84FB-83F8E1969A4F@live555.com>
References: <02F23373-9F6A-420E-91B3-C1ADE5AF2A60@staff.ietf.org>
To: admin-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.400.51.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/JOJzTKxxJ8jajy-j6Mn8W4u5LX8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <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, 21 Mar 2023 21:53:53 -0000

Isn’t it also conceivable that each IETF meeting, on average, leads to the adoption of technologies that *reduces* the world’s carbon consumption, making the overall global carbon footprint of an IETF meeting *negative*?  And that perhaps having an in-person IETF meeting increases this effect - so much so that the overall global carbon footprint of an in-person IETF meeting is even more negative than that of a fully-remote IETF meeting?

Should this be the case, will participants in an in-person IETF meeting be compensated for their attendance :-) :-)

	Ross.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email