Several conferences do not provide remote participation.
Hesham
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023, 1:21 PM Richard Shockey <richard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+1 to you John and Christian on this. Offsets like Cap and Trade is exactly what you expect from the bankers and they are SOOO concerned about the environment. <snicker>
The trend is exactly the opposite and I run conferences.
https://www.prweb.com/releases/the_sip_forum_announces_conference_lineup_for_2023_kyc_summit_and_sipnoc_2023_dates_set/prweb19208729.htm
People are sick of virtual events. Teams GOTO Zoom etc. Every communications industry conference I know is reporting record in person attendance. MWC etc.. even 3GPP is creeping back to full in person. They are looking at some big plenary thing in Greece shortly.
The USG is slowly but deliberately returning to in person Technical Advisory Committee meetings as well. I'm on a couple at the FCC. The DC Mayor has been complaining loudly to the Biden Administration that all of this virtual stuff is killing downtown DC the office property market, restaurants etc.
Make this bovine effluent go away. If you wanted to know why some of us do not want to take new work to the IETF you know now.
—
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
Chairman of the Board SIP Forum
www.shockey.us
www.sipforum.org <http://www.sipforum.org>
www.sipnoc.org <http://www.sipnoc.org> (2022)
richard<at>shockey.us
Skype-Linkedin-Facebook –Twitter rshockey101
PSTN +1 703-593-2683
On 3/21/23, 1:20 PM, "ietf on behalf of John Levine" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of johnl@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:johnl@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
It appears that Greg Wood <ghwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ghwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> said:
>While skepticism about carbon offsetting is not unwarranted, I can say with confidence that the IETF LLC staff, Secretariat and other people who have worked on the project were and are focused on
>doing what we can to improve the actual situation, and not just appearances. IETF participants have fairly consistently indicated they are in favor of being more environmentally sustainable, and
>this seems like a reasonable step towards that goal, while also being in scope for the IETF LLC.
I don't think anyone doubts your good faith or the LLCs, but I
also reiterate the point that carbon offsets are for suckers.
Earlier this year I virtually sat in on a seminar series at the Yale
forestry school about how you design forest carbon offsets and it
became clear that you have to make some extremely optimistic
assumptions. You have to believe that whoever has sold you the offset
will be able and willing to prevent logging in some remote forest for
fifty years, and also that they won't turn around resell the same
offset to someone else next year and the year after that. They talked
about how one might audit these things, but it wasn't very persuasive.
We can certainly look at ways to decrease the amount of CO2 our
meetings generate, e.g., by looking for venues that require less air
travel, but we should not imagine that we can fix the rest of it by
buying phantom offsets.
R's,
John
