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

"MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <> Tue, 31 January 2017 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B461F129EDA for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:31:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GuJjE7QGijqd for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:31:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0005129ECB for <>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:31:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([fe80::f5de:4c30:bc26:d70a]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:31:05 -0500
From: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Thread-Topic: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Thread-Index: AQHSemMdtz+BYbM/YUyZmAb3LjspL6FRbwdAgAEwUQCAAAziAIAAA4SAgAAuHQCAAArKgP//rmCw
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:31:04 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-kse-attachmentfiltering-interceptor-info: protection disabled
x-kse-serverinfo:, 9
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful
x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean, bases: 1/31/2017 11:19:00 AM
x-kse-dlp-scaninfo: Skipped
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 13:31:16 -0000

I think the simplest solution is for individuals to purchase their own travel insurance to cover the cost of cancellation/move of the event. IETF insures against the risk contractually (And possibly with insurance) and individuals insure their own risks. This would seem to me to be the cleanest and most straight forward solution.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:21 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF
> 100
> 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.