Subject: Re: [Manycouches] Sad irony

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:26:06 +0200

Hi,

I’ll leave it to Jay (who is on vacation at the moment) to provide details, but what you claim below is not correct.

We negotiated pretty robust cancellation and cancel-and-rebook terms, hence the LLC Board is comfortable with the limited financial risk.

Thanks,
Lars
-- 
Sent from a mobile device; please excuse typos.

> On Jan 7, 2022, at 18:26, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> If we plan for an in-person meeting and have to cancel, IETF is going to lose a lot of money. We can't insure. The hotels are probably being forced to offer flexible terms but those aren't the only costs.

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2022 20:40:31 +0000

> We negotiated pretty robust cancellation and cancel-and-rebook terms, hence the LLC Board is comfortable with the limited financial risk.

Since Jay is on holiday, as Lars noted, I'll reply here briefly. There is a typical cancellation fee schedule - where the fee increases up to the total meeting cost as the date approaches. More importantly, there is NO cancellation fee if another meeting is booked in at the venue in the next several years. This is the sort of clause the IETF has exercised many times (even pre-COVID).

Jay and the Secretariat have done their best to negotiate good terms to mitigate the risk arising from full cancellation. At the same time, it is clear we are operating in unprecedented times of uncertainty and are doing the best we can to manage & mitigate that to the extent possible.

Jason

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2022 12:04:43 +0100

Le 08/01/2022 à 21:40, Livingood, Jason a écrit :
>> I’ll leave it to Jay (who is on vacation at the moment) to provide 
>> details, but what you claim below is not correct. We negotiated 
>> pretty robust cancellation and cancel-and-rebook terms, hence the 
>> LLC Board is comfortable with the limited financial risk.
> 
> Since Jay is on holiday, as Lars noted, I'll reply here briefly. 
> There is a typical cancellation fee schedule - where the fee 
> increases up to the total meeting cost as the date approaches. More 
> importantly, there is NO cancellation fee if another meeting is 
> booked in at the venue in the next several years. This is the sort
> of clause the IETF has exercised many times (even pre-COVID).
> 
> Jay and the Secretariat have done their best to negotiate good terms 
> to mitigate the risk arising from full cancellation. At the same 
> time, it is clear we are operating in unprecedented times of 
> uncertainty and are doing the best we can to manage & mitigate that 
> to the extent possible.

SOme ideas from elsewhere in similar planning for MArch: probably it
would make sense to state a likely cancellation possibility right where
it says 'IETF in Vienna'.  And - from me - tell every 2-3 days: today we 
dont cancel, today we dont cancel, etc.

Also, qualify most statements with a date on the covid page
https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/113/covid-related-requirements/

> Proof of Vaccination
> 
> All Participants must be able to show proof of vaccination with an 
> EMA-approved vaccine against COVID-19. EMA-approved vaccines 
> currently are: BioNtech/Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson & 
> Johnson (also known as Janssen). More information on the duration of
>  vaccine certificate validity, and how it applies to various vaccine
>  combinations, is available on the Vienna convention bureau website.

The list of EMA-approved vaccines is different than that of
convention.at URL (e.g. Novavax present in EMA and absent from the
other).  Which one primes?

Is it 2 or 3 or 4 dose?

If in my country 10 days after infection are sufficient does it apply to
the 180 days required by convention.at?

Would convention.at accept a paper certificate written in other language?

Would convention.at accept an _implicit_ proof of re-establishment which
is equal to a positive test followed by a negative test 15 days later?
That's how it works here.

There are now more complex rules here to prove the re-establishment:
shorter overall timespans but punctuated by more than just 2 tests.
This just came out a few days ago.  Does it apply in Austria?

> Proof of Past Infection
> 
> Alternatively, an official/medical certificate proving a past 
> infection (valid for 180 days after recovery) is accepted.

I wonder whether this rule is serious.  It sounds as if during these 180
days after re-establishment one might not contract and transmit covid
again.  This is not true: one can catch the virus and transmit any time.
  The 180 days might be true to mean that one's body will corectly fight
the covid, yes, but meeting other people has other higher risk: that of
transmitting the virus to somebody else.

Finally, the convention.at rules will certainly change at the beginning
of February.  The Austria leadership committed for vaccination mandate
in Austria.  If it happens, the vaccination rules change.  If not, then
there are other big problems.

For a traveller, vaccination is a matter that neeeds more planning than
just the 6 weeks between beginning of February and mid March.  It
depends on the starting vax status at the beginning of Feb.  But it
needs 3 weeks between the first 2 doses, and then about 3 months to a
3rd dose, depending on a changing regulation.  Then it might need 3
months to a 4th dose.

And, there is a need to find a vaccination slot, whihc might not be
available right away, depending on the wave status - at the beginning of
each wave the vaccination slots were hardly available (needed several
weeks) and then they were reqdily available w/o rdv, towards the end of
the wave.

If one is lucky, one might be right in the vaccination spot for March,
or might not.

I'll stop here...

Alex

> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Manycouches mailing 
> list [email-masked] 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches