Re: privacy and IETF meetings in US

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

Short ... just about the fare and insurance.

Yes, it is a tradeoff (purchasing in advance for a lower fare or not), that each participant should consider, but also is something that the LLC should have into account.

While I was working in the venue-selection-criteria document (2006 or so), I recall having asked already for the IETF cancellation insurance to be investigated/considered. I don't think that was actually done by the IAOC or IASA. So, I guess we somehow agree, and now is time to start investigating this.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

El 7/6/19 19:24, "ietf en nombre de John C Klensin" <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:

    
    
    --On Friday, June 7, 2019 09:21 -0700 Ole Jacobsen
    <[e-mail]> wrote:
    
    > 
    > You said:
    > 
    > "...the political situation in Thailand exploding in the
    > months before  IETF 106,.."
    > 
    > IETF 106 is being held in Singapore, so I am not sure how Thai 
    > politics would impact us.
    
    Sorry.  Misread my calendar.  But I could have as easily said
    "Political situation in Singapore" or used any other made-up,
    half-plausible, example involving any other meeting location.
    The point was that things can happen but that calling off a
    meeting (or meeting location) because of some unlikely event is
    likely to lead to madness.   After all, I could fairly easily
    find an article that claims that The BIg One is coming soon and
    then contend that we should cancel the San Francisco meeting
    because having an major earthquake in the middle of IETF would
    be really inconvenient to participants.
    
    While it was not my intent and your (or my) view of "relatively
    close" notwithstanding, Eric's comment also stands -- a major
    political disruption on that peninsula could affect other
    countries as well, some air connections to Singapore go through
    Bangkok, etc.   Given air connections from various parts of the
    world, similar comments would apply to significant disruptions
    in Hong Kong (which seem plausible, if unlikely, to me).
    
    I think the bottom line is that intelligent and strategic
    contingency planning is always a good idea because things we can
    barely (or cannot at all) anticipate can happen.  Canceling
    meetings more than two years out, or blocking countries even
    further in advance, seems unwise to me.  If I were negotiating
    hotel contracts for the IETF (which I am definitely not... and
    happy about that), I'd be looking to see if I could either get
    contract escape provisions or insurance to minimize the costs of
    our canceling due to Acts of God or politicians between
    contract-signing and meeting dates (and evaluating whether the
    marginal extra costs of such provisions exceeded the likely
    benefits)   And, if we are actually serious about delegating
    anything to the IETF LCC, Executive Director, and/or
    Secretariat, I'd hope to see sufficient reporting to leave the
    general IETF community with the sense that things are under
    control but would hope we can avoid debating every political
    action or possible natural disaster on the IETF list, especially
    in terms of "if you don't agree with my position or concerns,
    you are against privacy, freedom, apple pie, motherhood,
    assorted traditionally-disadvantaged groups, etc."
    
    One more comment and then I'm going back into my hole...
    
    --On Friday, June 7, 2019 18:38 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
    <jordi.palet=[e-mail]> wrote:
    
    > Some of us, who pay from our own pocket, buy the IETF flights
    > 11-12 months in advance (and they are non-refundable), in
    > order to be able to get as lower fares as possible. Otherwise,
    > we can't attend the meetings.
    > 
    > If the decision is taken only 1 year in advance, is fine to
    > avoid the cancelation of the ticket, but is if the new venue
    > is not announced at the same time, is too late to get a low
    > fare.
    
    Jordi,
    
    As someone who has been paying for tickets out of my own pocket
    for years, I've always felt I had to trade off "really low fair
    from far-in-advance purchase" against the risks of things going
    wrong.  I don't buy tickets a year in advance unless I can
    either get insurance against various contingencies or conclude
    that the prices are low enough that it is reasonable for me to
    essentially self-insure.    Under current policies as I
    understand them, if we had a meeting scheduled in San Francisco
    (or for that matter, Japan or even Vancouver) and, 30 days or
    six months ahead of the meeting, there were an earthquake and
    the meeting facility fell down, we'd presumably cancel or try to
    move the meeting.  While I'd hope you could convince the IETF to
    refund your registration fee, I don't think anyone would be
    likely to refund your airfare unless you had personally bought
    insurance against such catastrophes.  I'd be happy if the IETF
    LLC investigated buying, or offering on a group rate, insurance
    to cover participant costs associated with meeting cancellation
    contingencies even if the result of such an investigation were a
    report to the community about the costs and the conclusion that
    it wouldn't make sense.  
    
    And, yes, if meetings are going to get canceled or moved, I'd
    far prefer that be done at least a year in advance.  However,
    which it is sensible and feasible or not involves many tradeoffs
    including data the IETF LLC (and the IAOC before it) have
    concluded is not appropriately given to the community.  Probably
    they are correct, but that means we need to trust them to get it
    right.  And, if we can't do that, we need to either fix their
    membership (presumably via the Nomcom) or change their terms of
    reference (presumably via the IASA 2/0 WG or, if the problem
    lies with the LLC Agreement, whatever revolution is required to
    change that.  My conclusion is close to "good enough given the
    amount of energy I'm willing to invest".  YMMD.
    
    best,
       john 
    
    
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.