Hi Michael,
I don't think your view point is the right one. Let me try to explain and formulate the questions in a different way.
If any participant from an US company has their own rules regarding insurance, they may opt to not travel to an meeting in a given country *regardless* of being IETF or something else.
What I heard in previous discussions, is that the IETF is subjected to rules about insurance that mandate following the US CDC listings.
The question is very simple:
1) If that's correct, can the LLC point to exact US laws that say that?
2) If that's not correct, and it is due to insurance rules, can it be justified that there are no other insurance options?
3) If either 1 or 2 are the responses to this, shall we consider an alternative jurisdiction for the LLC?
And, this is the key question after all:
4) If we have a hosting country/venue that is not listed as "acceptable" and this specific criteria is not matched, will be the meeting taking place or not?
Tks!
Regards,
Jordi
El 25/8/21 17:58, "ietf en nombre de Michael Richardson" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx en nombre de mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I just realized that this was not responded. I guess the LLC should do it?
> I can read "While some continue to challenge the use of
> these sources, the IETF LLC and Secretariat
> are US corporations and as such these notices
> have a material impact on insurance and legal
> liability.", and this has been used several times for justifying the use of the CDC information.
> Can we have a demonstration, without confidential data of that?
> I deal with insurances for many things in my business every other day
> and I'm convinced that there are alternative choices that will offer
> the same balance in terms of coverage/cost than the actual one, without
> challenging us in depending on the US CDC or any other country.
My understanding is that while you and I [as non-US companies] can look
towards alternatives, that US-based companies aren't given a choice of
ignoring the US CDC when it comes to insurance.
{Obviously, the insurance company must offer exemptions, otherwise, how would
US contractors travel to, for instance, Kabul, to do stuff. But, one
presumes that this is a different insurance policy which does not apply to
the IT companies.}
So, it's not that the IETF LLC is a US company that matters here.
It's that a large number of attendees are part of US based companies.
None of this is specific to any of the political situation in Spain.
I think that you asking for someone from a US-based company to please confirm
my above assumption.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
**********************************************
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.
