On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 2:19 PM Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
[MB] And, it's good to refer to official sources for guidance. And, I understand that making RFC 8718 too specific could be problematic and that was a very painful process to arrive where it did. [/MB]
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".
[MB] And, that's where the subjectivity comes in. For example, rather than rely on local regulations for COVID restrictions, IETF policies are more restrictive. And, that's where the line gets fuzzy then as to whether IETF shouldn't also have a higher bar for other potential risks. Folks can recall that we've had meetings where there's been major anti-war protests (e.g., San Francisco 2009). I know some folks were even afraid to leave the hotel for dinner or walk in the area of the protests (which were just a couple blocks away from the meeting venue). And, we're due to meet there again in 2023 and that hotel is right next to the Tenderloin district which is very high crime. Personally, I think IETF should stick with the official sources and follow local rules and let individuals make their own decisions. That was certainly the conclusion for other safety risks discussed during the development of RFC 8718. [/MB]
Mike
