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

Mary B <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com> Tue, 31 January 2017 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.h.barnes@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 05FFE129476 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:37:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 9lEuGMudq6cP for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:37:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb0-x232.google.com (mail-yb0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::232]) (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 A3071129450 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:37:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb0-x232.google.com with SMTP id o65so33168625ybo.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:37:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uPtGP5UtO2d0GN3up/dnv6oSKxAmUHGjVkBj6jj8XK4=; b=KCdir92qcd2GdsgC8Dv2oheav8lliCgRSB29wKVRrXGBzwq+5SQ4e+6x0vPzlRlo0s hf8U6nMIauaVzJgPj5FtWAApyo4QW6BjIZ6+OFzUm6hNjlCq85tTSVj1fa34zvWQ5DlU XUt+qP2/y2o5P+mlQfOTtmURC/1G0KbKjkLV7JwbFc0DxDOQyst7GrmioK++RqkE6RSB I3Rf6o68n2X2C7q6ED9mgceHjG8PEKDV6AS0YhhfcEzq1L4+QMH4M0YIPssFHLUYbqQa AE39nH0zfSjHW6LeEpmYrWj4/HmOYa4Qqz7wSGmJWjwKIF+HKrbb245Z5wQs+YLoHOaa 6MqA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uPtGP5UtO2d0GN3up/dnv6oSKxAmUHGjVkBj6jj8XK4=; b=ugcJMM5BI9CS1Vx90ygV1vjmyhfPrw8A2XRLYefn7hMlwMbqdsCjeDNoZr0ShnOxAv SwbjWrXEU9cyEK9f7aG5Y3v0zP+81F03L2kJPKomEWX+9lbMZ2XHS61E13egJouMIbiw 2R/I6WeBrWRxw52OKZA9SRL0OXsHdqYDdVpW9ugUwZ2P1rwUhyjZswtq9C6PClCOBOQy BBKe9f3e56ACO0QDkZ64uNzZRs/XWbVKzlnHcOgPiopLnUg2yMEA7Z5e9ausMgCJQcmM SaA9HEusHDW9W19q3Xgmo/nIj5GxOXDUTRIevHik+0WFzG7oaPeVZBqD5tPV1gWveNiz 3J7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJNDBDQW3oE1vfaB7o3iG/LCW4fdxEkzh9kH5gN4X69PkKoHCHt4nz1SD1OdWmCxbT7CXjA0cQhM43Fnw==
X-Received: by 10.37.174.35 with SMTP id a35mr9133033ybj.32.1485869862666; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:37:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.194.131 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:37:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <B94C79D8-F26E-44A9-93E4-182B9D9D3336@consulintel.es>
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> <A965E752-158F-41FF-BB7E-EA4203F346F0@gmail.com> <B94C79D8-F26E-44A9-93E4-182B9D9D3336@consulintel.es>
From: Mary B <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:37:42 -0600
Message-ID: <CABmDk8kDNEitWZbH_kYKWxbKMud0_zde8vAoNWm5bk_j4HgCUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045dbf8658ca75054764099b
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Xgi4kNqO-V98tnuKv94x-teSsF8>
Cc: "<ietf@ietf.org>" <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 13:37:46 -0000

You can buy trip insurance many times from the company from whom you've
purchased the ticket (at least in the US).   It's a nominal fee and covers
a portion of the change fee, etc.

I personally can't fathom that IETF would be responsible for your change
fees, but I'm also not a lawyer.  I'd be curious to see legal precedent as
a quick search I found implies that airfare is not refundable if an event
is cancelled.  Certainly, the meeting fee should be totally reimbursed with
no cancellation fee.

Regards,
Mary.

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:20 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
jordi.palet@consulintel.es>; wrote:

> I don’t think it is relevant if this happens to 2 participants or 20 or
> 200. For those that pay from their own pocket the traveling expenses and
> IETF registration fee, saving a 10-20% or whatever is the saving, is very
> relevant and it is our right to do so.
>
> When IETF makes an official announcement of a venue, according to law, IT
> IS a contractual announcement and is liable for damages and expenses if
> that’s changed.
>
> I’m not a lawyer, however, I checked this with an American lawyer a few
> years ago, when I suggested the first time for the need to the insurance,
> and I was working in the first version of the venue-selection-criteria ID.
> I don’t think laws changed in those years about this.
>
> Even if it is a refundable ticket, the expenses to change or refund that,
> will be also responsibility of the IETF, unless there is what laws call
> “overwhelming force”, which it most of the cases will be only accepted by
> courts if there is no chance for 99% of the participants to held the
> meeting (venue collapsed because a fire, earthquake, or something similar).
>
> I think at that time, somebody suggested that it will be cheaper for IETF
> to cover those expenses (in case of cancellation) to those that may claim
> it than paying for the insurance for each meeting, but I’m not really sure
> that’s correct. Have we tried to get quotes for that insurance?
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>; en nombre de Yoav Nir <
> ynir.ietf@gmail.com>;
> Responder a: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>;
> Fecha: martes, 31 de enero de 2017, 13:41
> Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>;
> CC: <ietf@ietf.org>;
> Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
>
>
>     > 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
>
>