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

Mary B <> Tue, 31 January 2017 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05FFE129476 for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:37:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9lEuGMudq6cP for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:37:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3071129450 for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:37:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id o65so33168625ybo.2 for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:37:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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;; 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 with SMTP id a35mr9133033ybj.32.1485869862666; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:37:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:37:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Mary B <>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:37:42 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: Jordi Palet Martinez <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045dbf8658ca75054764099b
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "<>" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.


On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:20 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> 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 <> en nombre de Yoav Nir <
> Responder a: <>
> Fecha: martes, 31 de enero de 2017, 13:41
> Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <>
> CC: <>
> Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
>     > On 31 Jan 2017, at 11:56, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
>> 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 ?
> 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.