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

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.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:21 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
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 <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> en nombre de Yoav Nir
<ynir(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> Responder a: 
<ynir(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Fecha: martes, 31 de enero de 2017, 13:41
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>
CC: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF
100

    > On 31 Jan 2017, at 11:56, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es> 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 ?
http://www.consulintel.es
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.