Jordi,
I think we are looking at different principles and issues and
therefore talking past each other a bit. I don't think the
difference between our guesses about who might sue whom over
what can be usefully discussed further. Rather than digging
those holes deeper and in the hope of clarifying your concerns,
let me ask a question:
Suppose that, to the extent possible [1] (and not just for venue
selection or interactions with disease mitigation efforts), we
adopted a principle that we do not rely on the rules of any one
country. Instead we identify the top five countries by count of
IETF active participants [2], add in whatever WHO has to say
where health-related issues are concerned, examines the rules of
each, and then adopt IETF rules on the basis of picking the most
restrictive of the group [3], mixing rules from different
jurisdictions to get the most restrictive rule in each
sub-category if needed. Temporarily putting aside the
implications for potential newcomers from seriously
underrepresented part of the world, would something like that
meet your needs?
best,
john
[1] For some (or many) cases, it may not be possible, which was
part of the reason I brought the insurance issues up, but skip
that for the purposes of my question.
[2] I recognized that, were someone to actually propose such a
procedure, the community would probably get into an endless
debate how to measure active IETF participants and count them by
country. Fortunately, the above is not a proposal, just an
attempt to get clarification.
[3[ When, for example, we have some countries trending in the
direction in which they might eventually require a booster shot
to be considered fully vaccinated while WHO is arguing for
saving those "extra" doses for other countries, that merge might
not be straightforward. But, again, a hypothetical question,
not a proposal.
--On Thursday, September 2, 2021 09:35 +0200 JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> I also deal very often with insurance companies and even had a
> couple of litigation situations with them, so I understand all
> that.
>
> However, the actual criteria that we follow to host the
> meetings was not available before, so our "possible" insurance
> companies, didn't knew if we were looking at the CDC or not.
>
> I also don't believe that anyone can sue (and won that case)
> the IETF if it gets infected or has any injuries because
> something happens in a given venue/country. Nobody enforced
> you to go to that country. Of course, assuming that you were
> following the local laws for security, health, etc. Of course,
> if somebody falls in an IETF meeting in a country accepted by
> the CDC, and break his back, will also be able to sue the
> IETF, but of course, if it was an accident outside of the IETF
> responsibility, and instead may be a responsibility of the
> venue (for example a wall falls down, etc.).
>
> I still think the LLC Board should provide a clear answer to
> my questions and then the community should decide if we agree
> or not with that.
>
> I also understand that moving the LLC outside US may not be
> that easy. May be there is a way because ISOC also has offices
> in Switzerland, etc., I just don't know, and of course, before
> taking the decision about any other jurisdiction we will need
> to look into the local laws for this and many other aspects.
> It is an open question, but it is only important after we know
> the answer to questions 1, 2 and 4.
>
> I participated in the IASA2 process. Unfortunately, at that
> time I (probably others as well) didn't consider insurance
> issues related to the CDC. Otherwise, we would have resolved
> this before.
>
> Note that I'm not centering the discussion in the Covid
> situation, neither any specific venue or country or meeting,
> but in general in anything that may arise in the future ... we
> don't have the crystal ball, but we definitively need to avoid
> that any specific country recommendation, avoid us holding a
> meeting, because that opens the doors to a boycott of any
> country against others for political, commercial or other
> reasons. And that it is absolutely UNNACEPTABLE and we need to
> make sure that we avoid that *as much as we can*.
>
> So again, my questions are still unanswered.
