Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled

Fernando Gont <> Thu, 12 March 2020 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464EC3A0A6C for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 08:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iUP3PxQ281IG for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 08:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAA063A0A0A for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 08:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E028807ED; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:27:21 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:27:11 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:27:26 -0000

On 12/3/20 05:28, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> The problem is that you're pointing to someone that, even if elected democratically, is creating troubles for the full planet, ignoring evident things like global warming ...

I don't think you want to get into that conversation. ;-) Unfortunately, 
there are more straightforward ways to create trouble people in other 
parts of the world. In *that* particular respect, ironically, they guy 
you're referring to has been same or even much better than many of his 

> And the second problem is that asking for a decision "now" for something that will take place in almost 5 months from now, don't looks to me like smart.

That's one point of view.

The decision can also be delayed, so then we can have discussions about 
refunds, etc. :-)

> I still think that the decision must be only based in the decisions of the local host government, of course, unless the full world prohibits traveling there.

That's debatable, particularly when the health of people is at stake, 
and many governments have been know for not being very transparent about 
these issues.

> Let's suppose we are already at the end of June and we need to take a decision. Let's suppose the Covid19 spread has gone lower in Spain. If US is the only country that prohibits people going to Spain, we must keep the meeting. US people decided what president they want, and this is a consequence of that.

I do agree with that, in principle.

But there's also the question of "being able to have a successful meeting".

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492