On 6/7/2022 11:19 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 6/7/22 08:53, Mary B wrote:
I don't think IETF should be making meeting decisions based on risks
of death from various causes in various countries, although I guess
they've started doing that with COVID.
I would support IETF making meeting venue decisions based on risks of
death and/or violence. Hardly anyone wants to meet in truly
dangerous areas, and plenty such areas exist. But such decisions
should be based on recent actual statistics rather than fears. I say
recent statistics because as far as I can tell, both COVID and recent
political conflicts seem to have resulted in an increase in violence
in the US and elsewhere. Good luck finding reliable sources of
recent statistics though.
And in the absence of supporting statistics, the US shouldn't be
assumed to be safer than anywhere else.
Keith
A little known fact is that the IETF did a quick targeted survey before
the first Seoul meeting as to whether long term attendees would be
going. That was against the background of heightened tensions between
North and South Korea at the time and something like 1100 artillery
tubes pointed at Seoul from North of the border.
AIRC the venue selection folk generally pay attention to the US State
Department travel advisories
(https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories.html)
and to other non-US entities (e.g. uk -
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/usa which itself refers back to
the US DHS https://www.dhs.gov/national-terrorism-advisory-system ) when
choosing and reconfirming locations. Side note: I never expected to
see Denmark as a L2.
I expect that war or conflict, terrorism, riots, local breakdowns of
government, health considerations, and natural disasters are part of the
conditions evaluated when considering where we will meet. All what I
would consider "risks of death".
Mike
