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

David Morris <> Tue, 31 January 2017 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB401299E8 for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:59:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.757
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.757 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.156, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bkYrVxx3sDGp for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:59:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D26612955C for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:59:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Proofpoint Essentials ESMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2706D800A4; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:59:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Proofpoint Essentials engine
Received: from (unknown []) by (Proofpoint Essentials ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id BCE1C60057; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:59:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Proofpoint Essentials ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id 5AD5418006D; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:59:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v0VIxkBC019880; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:59:47 -0800
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:59:45 -0800
From: David Morris <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-MDID: 1485889189-tGaexoeFBw3W
Archived-At: <>
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 18:59:52 -0000

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> 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.

Perhaps you knew the chances were high, but the policital establishment
didn't share your insight.

And while I agree that some conditions would warrant cancelation of a
contract, exactly how would that contract be written that would be
acceptable to all parties that would allow for cancelation because a
peaceful transition of power brought policies that you don't like.

The percentage of likely participants that will be effected? What would
that percentage be? Would the inconvenience of implementing Brexit result
in a cancelation trigger?

One way to avoid liability for individual cancelation expenses is to warn
everyone to purchase their own insurance OR not commit well in advance.

In the end, no matter where the IETF schedules a meeting a year or more in
advance, there might be an issue resulting in cancelation. A major earth
quake or hurricane could make the venue impossible. As could the political
situation though the litmus test would be harder.

Providing first class remote paricipation from several locations worldwide
would be awesome AND expensive. Would folks be willing to pay the same
registration fee to use such facilities as attending? I worked for a
company with such facilities so I know it is possible.

David Morris