RE: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Thu, 23 September 2004 15:58 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25390; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:58:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAW6M-0002jr-Aw; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:05:46 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAVn0-0002ob-8L; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:45:46 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAVem-0000jl-Nr for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:37:16 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23632 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:37:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hoemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.226.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAVlY-0002EJ-P9 for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:44:19 -0400
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by hoemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8NFbB0e007715 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:37:12 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <RLRKKQXS>; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:37:10 +0200
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15503C79CCA@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: 'Margaret Wasserman' <margaret@thingmagic.com>, Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net>, ietf@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:37:09 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Subject: RE: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3

> At 1:08 AM -0700 9/23/04, Tony Hain wrote:
> >2.1.4 - 6 months for the reserve is a funny number for an organization where
> >the nominal income period is 4 months. Wouldn't it make more sense to spell
> >out a reserve that covered a disaster case of a canceled meeting after the
> >contracts had been signed? Something like:
> >Also, in normal operating circumstances, the IASA would look to have a 6
> >month operating reserve for its non-meeting activities plus twice the recent
> >average for meeting contract guarantees.
> 
> I had been thinking that the IAOC will probably choose to get event 
> insurance to cover cancellation of an IETF meeting due to outside 
> forces (airline strike, earthquake, etc.).
> 

Mmm.. maybe for those.
But I bet not for tragic events like terrorist strikes/threats or war related
issues. So setting up some reserves of our own seems better to me.
Also no so sure about things like a SARS outbreak and people just choose
to not to travel.

Bert

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf