►
From YouTube: IETF113-SHMOO-20220324-1330
Description
SHMOO meeting session at IETF113
2022/03/24 1330
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/proceedings/
A
A
So
I
think
we
are
ready
to
get
started
off
like
mallory
might
be
running
a
little
bit
late
today,
so
she
had
her
high
ab
meeting
earlier
and
then
she's
like
on
the
way
to
this
one.
So,
and
thank
you
very
much
for
heading
here
to
this
meeting-
and
this
is
the
regular
note.
A
Well
so
it's
thursday,
I'm
sure,
you've
all
seen
it
like
a
few
times,
but
it's
like
our
duty
to
put
it
up,
so
just
make
sure
that
you
take
a
quick
look
at
it
and
like
all
the
contributions
you
make
here,
are
subject
to
53
78
and
8179.
A
So,
just
going
over
the
agenda
very
quickly,
there's
like
a
few
new
items
to
talk
about
today.
Like
you
know,
mark
is
gonna
present.
Like
you
know,
the
scheduling
of
online
meetings,
draft
and
daniel
has
like
some
carbon
emission
stuff.
Like
he's
gonna
talk
about
and
jay
also
had
like
a
small
update
to
give
regarding,
like
you
know
how
itf
is
gonna
handle,
like
you
know,
measuring
carbon
emissions
and
so
on.
A
So
just
like
just
a
quick
announcement
from
jay
at
the
end,
and
we
also
had
some
information
about
like,
like
you
know,
media
like
about
the
the
draft
like
the
online
meetings
draft
as
well,
so
the
adoption
call
completed,
but
we
haven't
gotten
any
like
you
know,
ea
or
nay,
on
the
draft.
So
we'll
probably
like
continue
this
like
a
little
bit
to
try
to
at
least
solicit
some
reviews
going
forward.
A
A
Okay,
cool
got
it.
Thank
you
so
amelia,
like
said
no
so
from
here,
thanks,
hey
mallory,
hey!
I
just
started
off
so
so.
The
on
the
recharger,
like
thanks
lars,
like
for
pushing
this
through
there's
like
a
the
final
block,
like
you
know
the
like
mallory,
like
a
crafted
text
to
clear
the
final
block
from
ben
kerra.
So
the
charter
is
an
external
review
as
like
far
as
we
can
see,
and
so
once
it's
done
large
like
you'll,
get
a
draft
coming
through.
A
So
like
the
media
and
martin's
draft
like
it's,
it's
it's
gonna
like
turn
around
and
come
back
through
to
as
like
vcp
after
the
chattering
is
complete.
B
Yeah
on
the
charter-
I
don't
know
if
this
microphone
actually
is
working.
Oh
it
is,
it
is
like
we
can
hear
you
guys.
Okay,
good
now
speak
up
for
people
in
the
room,
so
on
the
charter,
I'm
making
jay
type
some
text
right
now
and
then
I'm
gonna
stick
it
in
and
do
another
shadow
revision,
and
then
I
will
basically
push
it
push
it
forward
and
I
think
it
is
sort
of
approved
with
this
point
race
status,
I
think,
is
it
called
now
basically
take
effect
soonish.
I
don't
know
this.
A
Okay,
excellent,
thank
you
thanks
lars
and
so
the
the
guidelines
for
canceling
in
person,
meetings
and
replacing
them
with
online
meetings.
Like
there's
like
smooth,
cancel
meeting,
it
has
been
published
as
rfc
9137
since
the
last
meeting
cycle.
So
thank
you,
everybody
for
like
working
on
it
and
like
providing
like
lots
of
comments
and
lars
again
like
for
like
being
very
patient
and
pushing
this
through
and,
as
I
said,
like
the
remote
fee
draft
will
once
the
charter
is
complete.
A
We
can
just
push
it
back
to
the
iesg
because
we're
just
waiting
on
it,
like
I
think
the
like
working
group
process
has
completed
on
it.
So
it's
just
a
change
in
the
status
and-
and
that
was
the
result
of
comments
we
got
in
the
working
group
process,
so
we'll
just
push
it
to
the
iesg
as
soon
as
possible.
A
And
there's
like
a
three
drafts
for
the
origin,
one
of
the
original
deliverables,
which
is
the
meeting
planning
for
the
replacement
meeting,
so
the
shmu
hackathon
draft
is
completed
working
group
last
call
all
the
comments
have
been
addressed.
A
There's
like
some
shepherd
comments
that
mallory
put
in,
I
think
like
charles
is
gonna
address
it
like
as
soon
as
possible,
along
with
the
ietf
last
call
comments
or
like
ad
review
comments
when
you
get
them
so
this
morning
I
just
push
the
button
large,
like
you,
should
have
the
draft
with
you
right
now.
So
once
we
get
the
ad
review
comments
like
you
know,
if
there's
any
like
charles
a
lot
of
mallory's
comments
along
with
it,
if
not
like
during
itf
last
call,
he
can
address
the
comments
as
well.
A
And
the
kilometer
online
meeting
and
the
adoption
call
is
completed
as
this
is
the
one
I
talked
about
earlier.
So
there's
like
been
like
no
comments
received
so
like
we'll
just
like
dig
a
little
bit
more
to
see
if
somebody
can
review
the
draft,
but
I
think,
like
I
would
say
provisionally,
this
is
adopted
going
forward
and
for
like
mark's
draft
is
going
to
get
presented
today.
So
that's
also
another
draft
in
the
same
space.
So,
like
we'll
hear
my
talk
and
see
how
we
go
forward
with
that.
C
Excellent
hello,
so
I
don't
think
I'm
gonna
need
very
long
to
to
to
present.
Maybe
we
can
have
time
for
discussion.
I
guess
we'll
see.
Yeah.
A
Mars,
I
I
gave
you
slight.
I
gave
you
slight
control
mark
in
case
you
want
to
move.
C
Oh
okay,
oh
cool,
okay!
Thank
you
thanks.
So
this
is
a
draft.
I
wrote
a
little
while
ago,
just
based
on
experience
that
I've
had
participating
in
online
meetings.
I
guess
from
a
slightly
unusual
time
zone
in
the
ietf
also
when
we
were
on
the
iab.
A
lot
of
this
came
up
and
also
in
previous
lives,
working
on
in
bodies
in
places
like
the
w3c,
and
so
it's
just
kind
of
basically
section
two
is
considerations
for
when
you
schedule
online
meetings,
things
you
want
to
consider
section.
C
Three
is
some
recommendations
on
how
to
find
an
equitable
solution,
one
that
is
relatively
fair
to
all
the
participants,
and
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
discussions
we
could
have
about.
You
know
the
the
decisions
made
there
and
and
the
recommendations.
C
These
are
just
kind
of
my
standpoint-
I'm
not
particularly
set
in
stone,
but
if
people
feel
differently
I'd
love
to
talk
about
it
and
and
I've
written
in
in
such
a
way
that
that,
although
you
know
it's
an
ietf
document,
it's
not
itf
specific.
I
think
that
a
lot
of
these
are
things
that
you
could
use
in
other
fora
as
well.
C
If
you
wanted
to-
and
that's
intentional
and
and
and
I
guess
my
question
today
was-
I
brought
this
up
on
gen
dispatch
and
lars
recommended-
I
bring
it
to
schmoo,
I
I
brought
it
up
in
the
mailing
list.
I
didn't
get
any
responses,
so
I
just
wanted
to
see
if,
if
folks
were
interested
in
talking
about
this
in
this
working
group,
I'm
not
necessarily
asking
for
adoption
just
wondering
if
it's
in
scope
for
for
what
this
group
is
chartered
to
do.
D
C
Yeah,
well
I
mean,
if
you
look
at
the.
If
I
go
back
here,
you
know
effectively,
we've
you
know,
we've
got
method,
one
method,
two
method,
three
under
the
3.3
and
the
big
itf
meeting,
falls
under
method.
Three
rotate
the
pain.
C
You
know
we
can't
possibly
come
up
with
a
time
or
or
a
schedule
that
you
know
meets
everyone's
requirements
and
indeed
it's
kind
of
productive
to
try
and
do
that,
because
if
you
know
you
did
something
like
say
well,
most
people
are
from
north
america,
so
we'll
always
hold
them
in
north
america.
That's
not
good
for
other
reasons,
and
so
right.
A
C
Walks
you
through
those
different
things
and
I'm
sure
the
document
can
be
improved
but
generally
speaking,
yeah,
one-off
meetings.
It
talks
about
occasional
meetings
versus
regular
meetings
and
things
like
that
as
well.
D
Okay,
cool,
I
mean
this
is
almost
like
a
super
set
of
the
scheduling
bit
of
miriam
I's
draft.
We
have
a
hyper
specific,
precisely
specified
version,
rotate
the
pain.
So
I
I
don't
know
that
these.
So
while
there's
some
overlap,
I
don't
think
these
two
are
in
conflict.
C
D
A
I
think,
with
the
newer
charter,
it
might
be
in
scope
right
like
lars
right
like
but
yeah
or
like
previously.
It
was
not
really
in
scope
off
here
at
all
right
and
like
the
the
way
I
saw
it
like
and
last
I'll
go
like
I
just
want
to
like
I
had
one
thought
on
this.
Is
that
like
mars,
draft
is
like
like
wider
and
and
and
martin
like
yours
and
media
has
like
goes
really
into
like
one
section
of
it
right
like
in
a
lot
of
detail.
A
B
Thanks
thanks,
yes,
so
it
might
be
in
scope,
as
you
say
right.
If
the
group
wants
to
work
on
this,
since
the
charter
is
currently
being
revised
right,
we
might
stick
a
change
in
there.
That
makes
it
very
clear
that
it
is
in
scope.
The
other
option
is,
I
mean
this
is
certainly
even
if
we
decide
it's
non-scope
for
the
workers,
certainly
the
forum
in
which
to
discuss
this
and
if
there's
consensus
that
it
should
be
published,
it
could
also
be
ad
sponsored.
B
I
really
don't
care
frankly
remind
me:
is
it
the
bcp
level
at
the
moment?
What
do
you
intend
mark
or
is
it
informational,
or
I.
C
B
Don't
think
I've
really
got
that
far
with
it
yeah,
so
I
I
I'm
open
for
suggestions
right,
I
mean
if,
if
the
working
group
wants
to
take
this
on,
it
seems
like
a
very
small
change
to
make
this
more
explicit
in
the
current
charter
text,
and
we
can
certainly
do
that
in
terms
of
the
overlap
between
the
the
two
documents
right.
D
Well,
I
mean,
I
think
I
mean
we
are
addressing
the
specific
issue
of
scheduling
big
its
remotely,
and
so
this
is
like
an
instantiation
of
this.
That
is
super
duper,
specific,
okay,.
D
Right
so
as
people
the
isg
know,
I
have
massively
overthought
a
lot
of
these
issues,
so
I
would
be.
I
would
certainly
be
interested
in
reviewing
this,
whether
it
like
is
in
this
forum
or
another
one.
I
don't
really
care,
but
you
know,
I
know
what
others
think
thanks.
A
Yeah
thanks
thanks,
martin
right,
like
pete,
just
walked
in
like
so.
This
was
like
a
referral
from
gender
spat.
So,
like
you
know,
if
pete
wants
to
join
the
line
later,
that'll
be
good
us
all.
If
he
has
his
thoughts
on
it
and
robert
you're
next
yeah
sorry
go
ahead.
C
Sorry
can
I
respond
to
martin
there
real,
quick,
yeah
sure
I
don't
think
it
necessarily
needs
to
refer
to
the
more
specific
itf
big
meeting
document
needs
to
refer
to
this.
It
would
be
a
strange
if
they
were
not
aligned
on
on
how
they
you
know
speak
about
that
particular
situation,
but
maybe
a
footnote
at
the
very
most.
I
don't
think
it
needs
to
you
know
you
don't
need
to
read
both
documents
necessarily,
but
I
I
do
think
I
would
like
it
if
we're.
C
B
E
So
mark
you
mentioned
that
the
document
is
likely
to
be
applicable
outside
just
our
community
and
while
gathering
requirements
for
how
we
can
apply
the
algorithms
that
you're
trying
to
build
to
our
community.
Have
you
approached
big
scheduling
organizations
the
timeanddate.com
doodle?
Anybody
like
that
to
see
if
they
were
working
on
similar
problems
and
could
provide
input
into
into
the
discussion.
It
might
be
useful
for
us
or
to
see
if
they
would
want
to
adopt
this
into
their
tooling.
C
I
I
think
that'd
be
interesting.
I
certainly
haven't
talked
to
them
and
the
the
document
does
refer
to
some
existing
tooling,
but
I
don't
know
that
they've,
this
isn't
really
about
tooling
per
se.
It's
it's
more
about
coming
to
equitable
scheduling
for
all
the
participants.
C
There's
certainly
some
some
interesting
paths
to
explore
there,
but
I
haven't
yet
talked
to
anyone.
I
was
thinking
more
in
the
terms
of
I
guess,
accidental
reuse
or
or
unintended
unintended
reuse.
C
In
that
you
know
the
the
discussions
we
had
about
scheduling,
iab
meetings,
for
example,
were
almost
exactly
the
discussions
we
had
about
scheduling,
w3c
technical
architecture
group
meetings,
because
it's
it's
a
similar
problem,
and
so
that's
why
I've
written
in
the
way
that
I
have.
F
Yeah
hi
here's
my
coolerment
yeah
thanks
for
writing
this
down.
I
think
the
thoughts
on
the
document
are
a
really
good
read,
I'm
I'm
and
like.
I
think
this
is
the
right
venue
to
have
more
discussion
of
that.
I'm
not
sure
if
we
need
this
as
an
rfc
and
then
the
other
bit
I
was
like
I
was
when
I
first
saw
your
draft.
C
I
agree
it
would
be
valuable
to
have
that
discussion.
I
haven't
attempted
to
do
that
in
this
draft.
I
really
for
now
I'm
just
interested
in
figuring
out
the
scheduling
issue,
but
yeah
there's
lots
more
to
dig
into
I'm
sure.
G
One
two
three
just
making
sure
my
audio
is
coming
through.
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
welcome
this
draft.
The
number
of
times
that
I
could
use
this
to
inform
other
people
in
the
world
that
there
are
time
zones
that
are
not
their
own
and
that
there's
ways
to
pick
things
which
are
not
always
in
your
best
best
interest
but
will
get
the
work
forward.
I
think,
is
the
way
to
go,
and
I
welcome
this
draft.
Thank
you.
A
Thanks
sean
thanks,
mallory
you're
up
next.
H
Yeah
I
put
myself
in
the
queue
also
to
say
that
I
think
this
draft
is
really
important
and
I'm
really
glad
that
mark
you
wrote
it
as
somebody
who
has
to
endure.
I
think
a
lot
of
pain
based
on
your
time
zone.
So
it's
good
that
it's
coming
from
you.
I
just
also
wondered
if
there's
any
interest
in
making
this
explicitly
about
synchronous
meetings
and
making
that
more
explicit
synchronous,
online
meetings,
or
maybe
there's
also
room
to
talk
about
the
asynchronous
meeting
idea,
which
is
present
in
a
much
longer
draft.
H
H
That
might
be
also
an
alternative,
or
it
could
be
a
small
section
of
your
draft,
where
it's
just
not
possible
to
create
a
synchronous
experience
for
people
that
is
is
manageable.
Just
as
an
idea.
Thanks.
A
Valerie,
where
you
done
thank
you
daniel,
so.
J
Yeah,
I
think
it's.
The
draft
is
useful
to
provide
some
recommendation
and
to
at
least
explain
why
we
pick
one
hour
instead
of
the
others.
J
The
other
thing
is,
I
haven't,
read
the
draft,
but
I
think
it
should
be
a
good
place
to
to
figure
out
what
are
the
motivations
and
provide
some
guidelines
on?
Does
a
an
interim
meeting
is
needed
to
select
the
date
also
and
how
we
can
organize
that
interim
meeting.
For
example,
at
some
point
we
can
also
have
a
compromise.
We
don't
have
necessarily
everyone
at
every
interim
meetings
or
some
sometimes
we
can
privilege
one
time
zone
over
the
others.
This
is
also
one
reason.
J
We
have
two
chairs
some
kind
of
things
that
might
be
helpful
to
set
the
time
zone
and
those
interim
meetings.
A
Yeah,
I
think
danielle
rotate.
The
pain
part
of
the
draft,
like
does
cover
that
right,
like
mark
like
what
daniel
have
done.
A
Okay,
thanks
mark,
that's
I
see
the
queues
exhausted
unless
there's
somebody
in
the
room
who
wants
to
talk
pete
like
I
I
saw
you
walk
in
like
did
you
have
any
thoughts
about
whether,
like
you
know,
you
want
to
have
this
engenders
patch
or
not
mark
expresses
interest
that
this
stay
in
a
working
group
and
lars
said
like
he's
open
to
it?
So
did
you
have
any
thoughts
about
it
or
like?
If
you
just
can
just
give
me
a
thumbs
up
or
don?
That's
fine,
too,.
L
This
is
pete
bresnik.
It
absolutely
doesn't
make
a
difference
to
me.
You
know:
gen
dispatch
can't
work
on
documents,
so
the
only
thing
we
would
do
for
mark
is
talk
about
and
decide
where
he
should
take
it
and
it
seemed
like
if
shmu
is
going
to
be
one
of
the
possible
outputs
you
folks
might
as
well
talk
about
it
first.
If
you
can't
come
to
a
conclusion,
then
bring
it
back
to
us.
That's
fine.
A
B
A
Okay,
so
still
hand
slowly
going
up.
A
Okay,
so
I
I
see,
I
would
say
unanimous
interest
to
work
on
this,
so
we'll
kick
off
a
process
to
see
if
we
can
start
another
option
call
soon.
After
talking
to
lars.
A
J
Hi
everyone,
so
I'm
going
to
talk
about
co2
emissions
that
are
associated
to
the
itf
meetings.
J
So
the
question
is
sort
of
very
simple
is
I
I
started
that
work
asking
myself:
can
the
iclf
continue
with
a
business
as
usual,
where
we
have
three
in-person
meetings
a
year,
because
on
on
the
one
hand,
each
of
those
meeting
with
in-person
meeting
involves
thousands
or
more
than
a
thousand
international
flights
and
on
the
other
hand
we
have
science
that
is
urging
us
to
reduce
the
co2
emissions
recently.
So
the
the
working
group
ii
of
the
ipcc,
six
assessment
report
has
been
published.
J
It's
quite
alarming.
Un
secretary
general
called
it
a
code
red
for
humanity,
the
guardian
described
it
as
the
starkest
warning
yet
of
major
inevitable
and
irreversible
climate
changes.
So.
J
J
So
the
question
I
started
with
are:
what
really
happens
if
we're
considering
the
recommendation
for
the
ipcc,
how
it's
going
to
impact
the
way
we
operate
the
itf
and
then
I
was
also
wondering
what
is
the
exact
amount
of
co2,
or
I
mean
an
estimation
of
the
co2
that
either
the
itf
meeting
represents,
or
that
is
associated
to
one
itfa,
going
to
one
meeting,
two
meetings,
three
meetings
and
so
on,
and
so
so
having
meeting
with
air
flight.
J
So
air
flight
was
the
main
concern
and
we
can
also
see
that
yeah
what
what
is
that
being
envisioned
for
aviation
to
be
to
remain
more
sustainable,
and
if
we
take
that
trends,
those
strands
and
those
and
if
we
apply
those
to
the
earth
light
are
involved
in
the
idea
of
medics.
What
would
be
the
outcome?
J
So
that's
a
third
thing
I
tried,
but
what
we
need
to
also
consider
is
that
yes,
co2
or
flight
co2
emissions
is
one
aspect
of
sustainability,
and
there
is
a
more
general
question
is
how
can
we
drive?
J
How
can
we
lead
the
itf
as
a
21st
organization,
considering
sustainability
and
switch
from
the
20th
century
to
the
21st
one,
and
this
is
a
much
broader
question
I
I
am
I'm
I'm
not
trying
to
respond
to
that
one,
but
I
mean
my
main
focus
would
be
that
we
need
probably
to
have
some
expertise
and
to
some
help
to
define
a
plan
for
that
larger
question.
J
So
the
material
is
I'm
using
is
a
available
on
on
this
website,
and
I've
already
had
a
presentation
on
the
aid
workshop.
I
see
someone
in
the
queue
yeah.
A
That's
what
I
was
gonna
ask
danielle
so
richard
like
do
you
have
a
clarifying
question
on
this.
M
I
just
wanted
to
an
observation.
Basically,
so
while
we
are
discussing
here
the
co2
impact
of
an
in-person
meeting,
specifically,
I
would
want
to
make
the
observation
that
the
overall
co2
emissions
energy,
equivalent
overall
of
the
internet,
so
basically
the
technology
that
we
are
doing
here
in
the
ietf,
has
a
much
larger
impact.
And
if
we
are
really
serious
about
this,
I
don't
think
that
we
should
focus
so
much
on
the
on
the
on
the
sense
so
to
speak
rather
than
on
the
dollars,
meaning
looking
into
energy
efficient
technologies
or
improving
energy
efficiency.
M
Overall
in
our
protocols
and
reducing
energy
consumption
there,
because
that,
quite
frankly,
would
have
orders
of
magnitude
larger
impact
than
discussing
if
1
000
people
flights
should
be
saved
or
not.
Thanks.
A
Yeah
thanks
richard,
like
there
has
been
some
work
richard
like
you
know
that,
like
at
least
we
did
in
the
interior
for,
like
you
know,
use
of
you
know
like
multicast
and
things
like
that
to
conserve
energy
but
and
they
have
been
like
a
few
point
solutions.
I
remember
there
was
like
either
a
working
group
or
a
bar
for
a
research
group
like
back
in
the
day
for
like
energy
efficiency
and
so
on.
I
I
think
I'll
try
to
find
the
links
and
ship
it
off
richard
like
and
yeah.
A
B
Yes,
as
a
follow-up,
this
was
a
proposal
for
a
research
group
called
eerg
for
energy,
efficient
research
group,
and
that
was
roughly
2009.
I
think
so.
If
you,
google,
for
irtf
eerg,
you
find
stuff
from
those
meetings.
I
recently
had
a
look
because
other
people
seem
to
be
interested
in
revisiting
that
again
and
maybe
doing
some
research
there,
and
so
I
think
colin,
has
it
also
on
his
radar
as
something
that
might
happen
in
the
irtf,
but
it
could
also
happen
in
the
ietf.
I
guess
it
depends
on
what
people
want
to
do.
A
J
So
I
mean,
if
I
had
to
respond
to
richard,
I
would
say
I'm
very
much
happy
that
he
shares
some
information.
He
has
the
reason
I
was
focusing
on
on.
J
Only
the
travel
is
that
we
have
also
less
impact
on
how
the
technology
is
being
used
than
that
we
do
have
on
travel,
and
it's
also
that
everything
I've
found
is
more,
that
the
the
emissions
are
mostly
related
to
building
the
device
as
opposed
to
using
those,
and
so
so
that
was
the
reason
I
focus
on
something
we
can
actually
do
something
on,
but
I'm
very
much
happy
if
pretty
sure
you
can
share
anything
on
the
on
the
mailing
list.
M
Not
not
to
that
you
get
me
wrong.
I'm
not
saying
that
this
is
an
effort
that
you
shouldn't
be
doing.
I'm
just
saying:
there's
a
larger
fish
to
fry
as
well
as.
M
Small
fish
and,
quite
frankly,
I'm
really
happy
that
you
bring
it
up,
because
this
is
something
that
each
every
individual
here
that
is
participating
can
do
something
about
most
most
airliners.
They
offer
you
the
chance
to
basically
offset
your
co2
emissions
when
you
buy
the
ticket
by
yeah
mitigation
efforts,
whatever
they
are
offering.
So
there
are
some
ways
that
we
can
do
it
on
an
individual
basis
already,
but
if
it's
a
in
the
more
broad
scope
of
the
itf
or
the
scope
of
the
meeting,
obviously
that's
good
as
well
thanks
thanks.
A
J
So
what
does
the
science
says?
So
everything
mostly
what
I
took
as
a
base
is
the
ipcc,
which
is
the
an
internationally
accepted
authority
on
climate
change,
and
this
work
is
widely
agreed
upon
by
leading
climate
scientists
as
well
as
a
government,
and
the
reports
are
usually
taken
as
an
input
for
the
unfccc.
J
So
some
of
the
numbers
are
that
we,
the
limit,
is
clearly
being
set
to
1.5
degree
of
warming.
J
J
So
I
am
going
very
fast
in
the
I
provided
some
very
basic
history
to
show
that
science
is
not
something
has
not
contradicted
itself
at
one
point:
they're,
always
keeping
that
same
method
over
and
over
for
more
than
30
years-
and
currently
I
mean
everything
has
been
confirmed-
everything
they
say
30
years
before
has
been
confirmed
today
and
currently
one
the
target
remains
to
be
1.5.
J
If
we
don't
do
anything,
we're
moving
to
estimation
are
showing
that
we're
heading
to
3.6
degree
warming,
so
I
mean
we
are.
We
are
not
ahead
on
schedule.
J
So
the
other
thing
is
about
aviation
aviation.
So
it's
a
major
contributor
to
global
warming.
J
J
So
here
is
where
aviation:
this
is
the
increase
of
aviation,
and
you
can
see
that
you
have
a
big
decrease
there
due
to
the
kobe
19.,
the
gray
box
shows
where
we
should
be
to
address
the
1.5,
and
I
mean
you
can
see
in
the
bluish
color
that
we're
we
will
soon
be
over
the
target.
You
can
see
in
green
where
we
shoot.
What
is
the
path
we
should
take
toward
the
goals
for
50
2050.?
J
What
we
need
to
understand
with
aviation
is
that
or
even
co2
emissions
is
that
what
matters
is
also
the
accumulations
of
the
co2.
So
we
can't
do
much
about
what
has
been
already
emitted,
but
we
can't
do
about.
I
mean
reducing
what
we
will
be
emitting,
that
one
thing
so.
J
So
the
three
approach,
I'm
gonna,
going
to
detail
this
approach,
one
we
follow
just
the
ipcc
recommendation
and
see
how
it's
impact
our
meeting.
If
we
meet
as
we've
used
to
meet
before
the
pandemic
approach.
2
is
estimation
of
co2
emitted
by
the
itf
meetings.
Approach.
3
is
how
we
apply
different
scenario
to
aviation
to
our
traveling
approach,
one
it
basically
says
cutting
the
emission
by
50.
So
if
we
have
three
meetings
you
cut
by
half,
it
makes
you
have
a
one
in
person
meeting
a
year
and
two
virtual
meetings
a
year.
J
Again
it's
if
we
operate
the
same
way
we
used
to
operate,
which
is
three
meetings
a
year
net
zero
is
everything,
is
a
virtual.
J
So
approach
2
is
estimation
of
co2,
so
we
developed
a
tool.
What
it
does
is
it.
It
actually
takes
a
real
flight
with
a
different
legs
and
for
each
legs
applies
different
models
to
estimate
the
co2
emissions.
So
the
models
we
use
is
we
use
the
one
referred
in
my
climate.
J
We
used
another
one
on
go
climate.
We
go
climate,
provide
us
access
to
the
api,
and
so
we
use
that
one.
So
for
each
attendee
we
got
the
country
we
take
the
most
representative
city
of
that
country,
or
at
least
the
closest
city
to
where
we
can
actually
get
a
flight.
J
J
So
here
is
what
we
what
we
end
up
with,
so
for
each
meetings
from
its
72,
we
compute
the
co2
emitted
in
blue
for
for
the
in-person
meetings
in
orange,
we
provide
the
co2
that
a
remote
participant
would
admit
if
he,
if
he
had
attended
to
that
meeting.
So
it's
a
it's
like
a
virtual
emission
and
so
well.
This
is
what
we
we
can
figure
out
on
this.
J
J
I
mean
the
interesting
thing
also,
and
this
is
why
we
represent
the
the
co2
emission
associated
to
remote
participants-
is
that
it's
it
can
be
used
also
as
another
metrics
that
combine
the
distance
and
the
participation
as
opposed
to,
if
you
just
count
a
participant
as
plus
one.
So
it
means
if
you
have
a
meeting,
for
example,
in
let's
say
in
paris,
it
makes
a
difference
if
the
person
is
coming
from
belgium,
then
he's
coming
from
new
zealand.
J
So
considering
those
co2
is
a
is
a
metric
that
could
be
interesting.
Yes,
me
here
go
ahead.
F
Hey,
so
is
that
normalized
by
number
of
participants,
or
is
also
where
we
see
like
the
higher
peaks,
is
because
we
had
more
participants.
J
So
that's
for
each
for
each
participant
I
compute
the
co2
and
then
I'm
doing
a
sum.
So
if
you
have
many
many
participants,
I
mean
I
mean
given
the
distance.
If
you
have
many
persons,
I
mean
if
you
have
an
itf
in
paris
and
you
have
many
participants
in
braxton's
yeah
I
mean
having
many
participants
will
have
a
small
impact,
but
I
do
consider
the
number
of
participants
as
well.
A
D
Thanks,
I
don't
mess
with
the
thing
am
I
am
I
reading
this
correctly
that
the
remote
meetings
have
the
same
carbon
impact
as
as
the
regular
ones.
A
I
I
think
daniel
was
explaining
that,
like
you
know
the
it
has
assets
that
remote
people,
if
they
had
been
there,
this
would
be
the
impact.
D
J
Which
is
actually
a
good
thing,
because
we
means
I
mean
we
roughly
have
the
same
participation,
that's
how
you
can
read
it
so
in
term
of
quantity
of
emissions.
I
found
out
that
I
I
do
an
average
only
considering
the
in-person
meetings
and
I
took
that
we
have
3.2
gigagram
of
co2
per
itf
meeting
and
if
you're
an
itfa
I
mean
participating
in
that's
the
average
value
is
a
2.5
ton
of
co2
per
attendee,
so
that's
only
an
average.
J
So
the
big
question
is
now:
okay,
that's
big
numbers,
but
what
actually?
Oh
that's
numbers,
but
what
do
they
actually
represent?.
J
So
the
way
I
to
I
I
consider
the
it
I
mean
to
to
have
an
to
be
able
to
compare
the
numbers
we
have
and
to
see.
If
that's
big
numbers
or
small
numbers,
I
took
the
co2
emissions
per
capita
from
different
countries,
and
I
try
to
figure
out
where
itf
meetings
would
be.
J
So
what
we
can
see
is
that
participating
to
one
itf
meeting,
two
itf
and
three
meetings
bring
us
very
close
to
what
is
actually
needed
by,
and
I
mean
the
only
participation
to
the
itf
meetings
is
very
close
to
what
habitant
needs
to
to
to
live
for
a
year
in
some
countries,
and
if
we
do
get
a
little
bit
more
into
the
countries,
we
can
clearly
see
that
if
you
attend
three
itf
meetings,
the
number
I
found
you
you
almost
emit
as
much
co2,
as
some
people
living
in
germany
or
poland
are
emitting,
and
we
have
to
take
into
account
that
germany
and
poland
are
economies
that
are
heavily
based
on
coal,
which
is
a
heavy
hemature.
J
J
Well
I
mean
it.
It
works
what
it
was
it's
just
to
give
an
idea
of
what
co2
it
represents.
J
We
also
have
to
account
that
we
I
mean,
as
I
mentioned
before,
I
use
two
models
go
climate
and
my
climate.
We
do
have
a
20,
somehow
difference
between
the
two
and
if
we
comparing
to
the
results
j
is
providing,
we
also
have
a
20,
so
I
mean
the
the
countries
could
be
shift
and
it's
there
are
some
merging
for
discussions
as
well,
but
it
gives
a
good
average
and
overall
we
can
see
that
the
question
is
really
do
we
do.
J
We
have
any
way
to
justify
that
we're
emitting
as
much
as
a
big
polluter
on
only
for
to
participate
to
itef
meetings.
A
Yeah
daniel,
I
think,
like
a
like
few
people,
were
confused
on
the
per
capita
thing
on
the
chat.
So
if
can
I
try
to
explain
my
understanding
and
see
if
I'm
right,
like
just
to
clarify.
J
A
Is
if
you
go
to
one
itf
meeting,
you
are
emitting
as
much
co2
as
like
a
person
over
a
year
in
like
countries
like
mauritius
and
venezuela
is
that
the
yeah.
E
A
About
annual
co2
emissions
like
based
on
countries
and
and
the
countries
are
like
on
the
labels
on
the
x-axis
right,
like
sun
you're,
looking
at
the
intersect
points
and
seeing
how
much
like
each
meeting
attendance
cost
like
the
the
planner.
Would
that
be
a
good.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
george.
Did
that
make
sense
to
you,
or
I
don't
know
if
I
should
say
jorge
or
george
like
if
that
made
sense
to
you
just
like
type
in
the
chat.
Thank
you
thanks
and
yeah.
You
can
come
to
the
mic
like
if,
if
you
have
questions
like
we
do
have
a
bit
of
time
today
so,
like
you
know,
feel
free
to
come.
J
Any
question
or
yeah
feel
free
to
interrupt
and
go
to
the
mic.
I
can
I'm
not
good
at
multi-processing,
so
I
I
want
I'm
not
closely
looking
at
the
chat.
J
N
For
that,
before
the
the
graph
that
you
just
showed
that
confused
me,
the
most.
N
N
I
I
it
just
just
confused
me,
I
so
so
this
is
basically
just
sort
of
comparing
comparing
emissions
as
opposed
to
recommendations
for
where
we
should
be
citing
our
meetings.
I
mean
your
earlier
graph.
I
thought
was
pretty
interesting,
because
you
know
we
could
see
that
the
emissions
had
a
lot
to
do
with
where
the
meetings
were
cited
and
then
and
then
it
was
followed
by
this-
which
kind
of
confused
me.
J
No,
so
I
am
I'm
providing
no
indication
on
where
we
should
set
the
meetings,
it's
just
to
compare
those,
but
it's
just
to
be
to
to
realize
that
if
we're
going
to
three
meetings,
the
co2
that
we
are
emitting
by
simply
going
to
the
three
itf
meetings
correspond
to
the
co2
emitting
emitted
by
someone
living
in
poland
or
germany.
J
And
if
you
go
to
two
meetings,
you
go
to
it's
equivalent
to
the
co2
emitted
by
someone
living
in
countries
where
economy
is
less
based
on
coal,
so
with
less
emissions-
and
I
think
I
mentioned
uk
italy,
probably
france,
and
so
so
those
country.
J
Now,
if
you
go
to
one
meeting
the
countries,
the
co2,
the
data
we
have,
I
mean
it's,
we
have
to
to
also
take
a
pinch
of
salt
in
that,
but
it's
a
venezuela
mauritius,
it's
what
does
it
mean?
Well,
we
need
to
to
think
about
it,
but
it's.
It
still
means
that
it's
quite
a
lot
if
the
co2
that
we
are
requiring
just
to
attend
the
meeting,
the
co2
emissions
that
someone
living
in
those
heavy
emitting
countries,
it's
just
an
equal
sign.
A
Thank
you,
ted
you're
up
next.
O
Excuse
me
all
right,
thanks
ted
lemon,
so
a
couple
things
here
one
is
you
say
that
the
recommendation
is
to
go
to
one
meeting
a
year,
but
in
fact
cutting
us
cutting
our
meetings
in
half
would
probably
mean
that
we'd
be
going
to
three
meetings
every
two
years
since
currently
we
have
three
meetings
every
one
year.
That
half
would
be
three
every
two,
so
one
and
a
half
meetings
a
year
and
yeah
I
have
to.
I
have
to
agree
with
the
previous.
O
I
guess,
jim
fenton,
that
these
graphs
are
not
particularly
illustrative.
It's
sort
of
like
telling
us
how
many
football
fields
which
isn't
very
helpful.
You
have
our
bathtubs
yeah
so
and
also
like,
like
you
know
in
your
you,
you
talked
about
gigagrams
versus
tons
again.
O
It'd
probably
be
good
to
put
both
numbers
in
the
same
same
unit
yeah
so,
but
the
the
main
thing
that
I
wanted
to
to
bring
up
here
is
that
I
I
feel
like
this
is
sort
of
fiddling
while
rome
burns,
and
so
it
does.
This
doesn't
feel
like
it's
all
that
useful,
because
I
mean,
what's
probably
going
to
happen.
O
O
So
the
the
the
amount
of
co2
that
we're
burning
as
compared
to
the
amount
of
co2
that
the
total
world
is
burning
is
such
a
small
number
that
the
amount
of
effort
that
we
put
into
saving
that
co2
could
probably
be
more
effectively
put
elsewhere
like
we
would
probably
be
able
to
reduce
co2
emissions
by
a
lot
more
by
spending
that
effort
somewhere
else.
That's
all
I'm
getting
at.
F
O
No
I'm
not
even
talking
about
in
the
itf.
I
mean
like
this
is
just
this
sort
of
thing.
Like
you
know,
one
one
thing
to
say
is
that
is
that
it's
not
clear
to
me
that
co2
offsets
are
actually
useful,
like
there's
been
some
indication
that
some
of
them
are
scams,
so
I
think
just
like,
I
think
it's
worth
stepping
back
and
actually
looking
at
the
problem
systemically
rather
than
saying.
O
Oh
yeah,
we
accept
the
frame
that
the
problem
is
we're
using
too
much
co2,
and
so
we
need
to
do
something
to
stop
using
so
much
co2.
Personally,
that's
not
going
to
solve
the
problem,
it's
a
systemic
problem.
So
I
think
it's
not
helpful
to
really
talk
about
this
as
if
that's
a
real,
a
real
approach,
because
it's
not.
A
Thanks
ted
last
year,
up
next.
B
Yeah,
I
had
a
question
and
I
don't
know
if
it's
a
question
for
daniel,
though
now
for
for
ted.
So
so
the
recommendation
you
have
on
the
last
slide.
Basically,
it's
very
clear,
the
one
bullet
that
says
you
know
one
meeting
per
year
and-
and
I
guess
that
implies
that
you
looked
at
carbon,
offset
schemes
and
have
decided
that
they
are
not
an
option
for
us
and
and
if
so
I
would
like
to
know
why
or
so.
J
So
so
we're
moving
to
the
last
slide.
So
so
what
I'm
I'm
saying
is
that
if
we,
if
we
assume
that
we
have
to
reduce,
I
mean
the
recommendation
for
ipcc-
is
that
we
reduced
by
50
percent
right.
But
so
I
I'm
just
taking
that
and
saying
yeah.
How
does
it
impact
and
actually
I'm
just
looking
at
what
what
the
emission
of
the
itf
represent,
because
if
we
found
out
that
it
was
one
milligram,
then
we
could
say
yeah,
it
doesn't
work.
M
I
B
Some
of
them
might
not
be,
you
know,
might
be
fraud
but
but
others
might
not
be,
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
you
have
looked
into
this
and
and
decided
that
that
is
not
viable
and
and
if
you
have
looked
into
us
and
decided
some
bible
first,
I
would
like
to
know
why
and
if
you
haven't,
I
think
that
would
be
good
to
say.
J
Okay,
so
this
goes
in
my
third
point,
which
is
basically,
we
need
to
have
a
strategy
on
that
we
and
and
because
offset
is
very
complex.
So
I
haven't
looked
at
that
because
I'm
not
an
expert
in
that
and
and
and
this
is
a
why
we
need
some
expertise
from
outside-
to
do
the
right
thing.
So
that's
I
am
not
considering
it
because
I
have
no
opinion
on
on
how
to
use
offset.
J
It
can
be
good
or
bad,
but
I
I
don't
have
the
expertise
to
say
what
to
do,
and
this
is
why
my
strong
recommendation
is
that
we
do
involve
some
external
expertise
on
to
tell
us
what
to
do.
B
Thank
you
that
clarifies
it,
and
so
so
I
think
what
you
want
to
do
is
you
want
to
show
data
that
tries
to
illustrate
our
carbon
footprint,
but
but
I
would
then
maybe
not
put
recommendations
on
the
slide
at
all
like
because,
if
you,
if
you
say
that
you
can't
look
at
all
viable
options
because
you're
not
an
expert
and
maybe
the
recommendation
of
cutting
out
travel
is
is
maybe
not
since
it's
not
everything
that's
possible,
maybe
that's,
not
sort
of
that
should
be
presented
as
the
only
outcome
that
that
you
see
for
us.
J
No,
no,
it's
not
the
only
outcome.
It's
it's
a
if
we
have
to
reduce
this
is
one
one
way.
Okay,
I
mean.
A
Yeah,
thank
you
richard
you're
up
next.
M
So
again,
just
to
reiterate
the
point
with
the
per
capita
co2
emissions
is
a
little
bit
very,
quite
misleading
part
of
that
is
in
the
western
lifestyle.
Basically,
what
we
are
doing
here
in
the
itf,
so
what
we
all
are
doing,
the
zuwa
missions
are
co.
Rco2
footprint
is
including
effectively
the
co2
emissions
that
we
cause
by
participating
in
in
travel
like
this
right.
So
if
so,
I'm
just
saying
this
is
not
it's
not
a
strict
scientific
investigation.
M
If
you
compare
it
like
that's
in,
it's
becomes
misleading.
The
other
thing
is,
I
don't
think
that
a
recommendation
like
having
only
one
meeting
per
year
is,
quite
frankly,
the
one
that
we
need
to
do.
If
that
would
be
like
your,
the
suggestion
is
that
you
in
person
participate
only
in
that
one
meeting
per
year,
that
is
on
your
continent,
say
so
that
it
reduces
your
the
the
length
of
travel,
the
co2
emissions
of
that
travel.
M
That's
obviously
something
that
we
can
that
we
have
personally
choice
over
while
I
don't
think
that
we
need
to
carb
the
number
of
itf
meetings
overall,
but
I
think
it
may
be
a
good
idea
to
have
something
like
a
recommendation.
This
next
meeting
will
be
calls
based
on
your
locality
and
based
on
the
locality
of
the
of
the
conference
that
amount
of
co2
emissions.
M
Do
you
really
want
to
impact
the
global
climate
with
that
number
of
c2,
rather
than
saying?
Ietf
can
only
have
one
meeting
per
year.
A
Thank
you
thanks
richard
martin
you're
up
next.
D
Yeah,
let
me
try
to
synthesize
a
few
things
thanks
for
the
the
analysis
of
the
carbon
footprint,
I
think
that
is
interesting
information
and
maybe
helps
people
who
look
at
it.
People
who
are
exposed
to
it
will
be
able
to
think
about
what
they're
doing
in
a
more
knowledgeable
way.
I
would
like
to
share
the
push
back
against
making
a
recommendation
in
this
space,
not
only
because
you
have
not
you're
not
able
to
evaluate
all
the
alternatives,
but
also
because
you
know
you're
missing,
half
the
cost
benefit
equation.
D
Ietf
meetings
in
person
have
benefits,
including
benefits
for
the
client
for
the
climate
because,
for
example,
webrtc
has
had
benefits
for
the
climate
and,
lastly,
to
kind
of
echo.
Some
of
what
ted
was
saying,
I
think
itf
acting
alone
will
have
no
practical
impact
if
there's
a
collective
effort
by
organizations
to
reduce
their
carbon
footprint
of
meetings.
D
J
So
that's
easy
to
say:
we
can't
do
anything
because
the
other
are
not
doing
at
first
it's
wrong.
Icann
is
also
looking
at
those
numbers,
so
I
disagree
with
the
fact
saying:
oh
if
the
other
are
not
doing
we're
not
doing
which
I
I
think
it's
the
sense
of
the
comment
of
your
comment
as
well
as
ted
comments
for
sure
we
we
need
a
default
from
everyone
and
that's
what
it
makes
it
hard
to
handle,
but.
J
J
A
Yeah,
if
you
can
note
both
of
them.
Thank
you
george
jorge
like
thank
you.
I
don't
know
how
to
say
it.
So
sorry,
if
I
got
it
wrong.
I
It's
okay,
you
know,
you
can
say
it
wherever
he
works
for
you.
You
know.
Thank
you
so
much
enough
for
the
detail.
You
know
amount
of
information
and
analysis,
and
that
is
you
know
really.
What
is
getting
me
lost.
You
know
I'm
getting
lost
in
the
numbers,
because
when
you
do
comparisons
between
countries,
you
know
there
are
so
many
variables.
You
know.
I
Gdp
that
have
to
do
whether
it's
convenient
or
not
to
have
a
meeting.
I
agree
with
lars
that
this
looks
like
something
we
should
consider,
and
probably
you
know,
your
presentation
is
a
good
motivation
to
think.
Do
we
have
to
find
an
external
consultant
experts?
You
know
that
can
say
okay,
what
is
the
actual
impact
of
every
meeting,
not
just
on
the
co2
emissions,
but
economic
impact
you
know
benefit.
You
know
what
you
guys
we
are
talking
about.
I
A
H
Thanks
yeah,
I
it
occurs
to
me
that
this
is
also
being
said
in
the
chat
to
join,
which
is
great,
but
that
we
simply
raise
awareness
and
help.
People
individually
or
companies
calculate
these
costs.
Then
they
can
make
their
own
decision
because,
for
example
like
if
we
just
generally
ask
folks
to
participate
remotely
more
just
sort
of
being
suggested,
making
it
easier
to
do
so.
H
H
The
the
nature
of
my
situation
means
that
it's
the
meetings
that
are
far
away,
that
I
would
I
would
most
want
to
travel
to
it's
the
ones,
maybe
middle
distance,
that
I
could
you
know
do
without
so
so
that
is
always
going
to
be
a
factor.
People
are
going
to
be
weighing
those
things.
You
might
also
imagine
that
some
companies
have
individuals
in
different
regions,
and
so
they
can
make
decisions
and
trade-offs.
H
Based
on
who's,
more
proximal,
who
can
cover,
you
know
ietf
sessions
in
person
versus
a
way,
so
we
can't
really
imagine
how
folks
are
going
to
make
the
decisions,
but
we
can
help
by
raising
awareness
and
giving
them
the
tools
to
make
their
own
calculations,
and
so
I
think
that
kind
of
guidance
could
actually
be
very
useful,
but
whether
or
not
to
actually
just
host
entire
remote
meetings
as
part
of
the
decision
making.
That
comes
out
of
that,
I'm
I'm,
like
others,
a
little
bit
more
dubious
of
that.
H
Although
having
been
a
part
of
many
couches
before
shmu
existed,
you
know
before
the
pandemic.
Like
you
know,
I
was.
I
was
a
member
just
because
I
had
experience
doing
remote
meetings
around
the
world
in
a
previous
job,
and
it
was
stated,
like
some
folks
actually
thought
you
know
if
we
could
get
the
ietf
to
reduce
its
number
of
in-person
meetings
by
one
per
year.
That
would
be
an
amazing
goal,
but
you
know
I
don't
I
don't
know.
We
would
obviously
need
more
than
just
emissions
to
drive
that
movement
thanks.
A
Thank
you
oliver,
like,
if
you
want
to
skip
back
ahead,
go
ahead.
P
Yeah,
can
you
hear
me
now
yeah?
Thank
you
wonderful,
yeah.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
say
thank
you
for
the
for
the
work
you
put
in
and
the
effort.
P
J
No
so
because
I'm
only
considering
a
flight
if
you're
attending
remote
you're
not
flying
you
you
I
provide.
The
number
is
zero
kilogram
of.
P
J
Okay,
so
it's
just
if
you
were
flying.
P
Okay,
good,
so
the
the
the
one
part.
What
maybe
I
have
a
little
bit
of
problem
with?
Is
you
said
that
you
don't
make
any
recommendation
where
to
meet?
I
think
when
we
make
these
studies
they
should
then
maybe
help
to
identify.
Where
would
where
would
we
use
the
least
or
where
would
he
have
the
least
carbon
footprint?
P
P
P
P
So,
if
I
see
if
I
look,
for
example,
in
the
carbon
footprint
here
at
my
house,
since
I'm
remote
working
of
course,
it
goes
much
higher
up,
because
now
we
are
longer
in
the
house,
we
have
to
heat
the
house.
P
P
A
Thank
you
thanks.
Oliver
ted
you're
up
next.
O
All
right
ted
lemon,
just
one
thing
before
I
actually
say
what
I
want
to
say
is
I
tend
to
have
a
cognitive
bias
towards
criticizing,
and
I
apologize
if
my
my
previous
comment
was
basically
just
100
criticism.
I
do
appreciate
you
doing
this
work.
The
you
made
a
couple
points
there
that
I
think
makes
sense.
One
is:
can
the
ietf
actually
do
something
to
reduce
the
number
of
in-person
meetings
that
people
do
all
you
know
all
around
the
existence?
O
That's
something
that
you
know.
We
all
as
a
society
collectively
learned
how
to
do
that
was
possible
because
of
what
the
ietf
had
done,
and
also
because
of
what
organizations
like
zoom
had
done
to
produce
that
software.
So
there
are,
there
are
winds
like
that
that
we
could
probably
enable
that
would
far
outweigh
any
kind
of
carbon
reduction
that
we
get
from
not
coming
to
meetings.
I
say
that
as
someone
who
really
think
you
know
like,
I
was
one
of
the
people
that
was
having
that
conversation
with
mallory
about
well.
O
Can
we
just
have
fewer
meetings
because
of
all
this
carbon,
but
you
know
having
having
missed
six
in-person
meetings
at
this
point,
I
think
and
then
coming
to
one
man.
It
is
really
useful
to
come
to
these
meetings.
We
get
a
lot
of
stuff
done,
it's
hard
to
really
quantify
the
value
of
that,
and
so
I
I
just
don't
feel
like.
O
I
don't
feel
like.
We
know
enough
to
to
to
make
a
clear
statement
that,
oh,
if
we
had
fewer
in-person
meetings
that
would
actually
save
carbon,
it
might
do
quite
the
opposite.
You
know
if
we
make
progress
on
controlling
ddos
attacks,
if
we
reduce
the
number
of
of
what
do
they
call
it,
you
know
if
we
increase
the
ratio
of
good
put
to
bad,
put
the
amount
of
the
amount
of
energy
that
we
could
save
doing.
O
That
would
be
huge
if
we
can
figure
out
a
way
to
get
the
bitcoin
fiends
to
stop
burning
coal
to
make
coins.
We
could
easily
save
several
orders
of
magnitude
more
carbon
just
by
succeeding
at
that
task,
not
saying
we
can,
but
you
know,
maybe
we
could
find
a
task
like
that.
So
many
orders
of
magnitude
more
carbon
by
by
succeeding
at
that
task
than
by
addressing
this
particular
problem.
O
This
problem
is
relatively
easy
to
address,
which
makes
it
attractive,
but
the
point
I
was
getting
at
is
that
it
might
be
worth
actually
putting
the
effort
into
figuring
out
strategically
what
we
could
do
as
an
organization
that
would
actually
make
really
major
impacts.
Like
you
know
our
best
case
scenario,
if
the
ietf
is
all
four
percent
of
you
know,
the
airline
stuff
is
that
we
reduce
global
warming
by
0.1
degrees
c.
If
we
stopped
coming
to
these
meetings,
that's
a
very
small
number.
O
We
need
to
reduce
it
by
a
lot
more
than
that,
and
I
think
that
the
people
that
come
to
the
itf
have
opportunities
where
they
can
actually
do
that
kind
of
thing.
So
so
that's
what
I'm
getting
at
when
I
say:
let's,
let's
back
off
to
20
000
feet
so
to
speak
and
think
big.
What
could
we
really
do
here?
That
would
really
make
a
difference
as
opposed
to
what
what's
obvious
and
easy,
but
might
not
make
that
big.
A
difference.
J
Well,
it's
it's.
I
mean
it's
one
thing
that
we
don't
have
clear
plan.
I
mean
I'm
happy,
I'm
happy
to
have
a
better
impact,
but
so
far
I
haven't
hear
a
clear
plan.
So
it's
always
easier
to
say
we
can
do
better,
but
we
do
not
things
and
I
think
that's
something
we
should
avoid.
G
One
two
three
four
okay,
hi
daniel.
I
just
want
to
basically
say
the
same
thing.
That
ted
said
probably
quicker.
Thanks
for
doing
this
work
thanks
for
thinking
about
it,
but
everything
else
he
said
I
completely
agree
with
and
I
think
you're
right.
We
should
think
about
it
and
try
to
figure
out
what
the
plan
is.
I
think
two
and
three
are
great
one.
I'm
not
sure
falls
from
the
analysis
you
did
and
I'll
leave
with
that.
Thanks.
A
Thank
you
thanks.
Sean
phil
go
ahead.
A
Q
I
I
think
the
way
that
we
should
start
this
is
to
first
ask
are
three
meetings,
the
right
number
for
itf
I
mean
I
would
much
rather
have
one
big
meeting
with
everybody
there
a
year
rather
than
three
with
sparse
attendance
in
person,
and
so
one
of
the
things
I
think
that
we
need
to
look
at
going
forward
is
what
the
attendance
is
on
site
and
if
it
doesn't
pick
up
substantially,
we've
got
to
revisit.
Q
Most
of
the
kerosene
lanterns
are
used
in
sub
saharan
africa,
they're
smelly,
they're
dirty
their
health
hazard,
and
so
maybe,
if
we
got
into
that
form
of
carbon
offset,
you
know
as
an
itf
wide
made
that
easy.
Maybe
that
would
be
some
way
to
improve
the
carbon
offsets
system
and
finally,
on
the
cryptocurrency
system.
Q
At
this
point,
I
would
absolutely
sincerely
like
to
see
switchblade
loitering
munitions
used
to
take
out
bitcoin
mining
operations.
I
want
to
destroy
them
with
drones.
Emp
strikes
the
lot.
I
am
fed
up
of
them,
they're
a
bunch
of
fascists,
and
I
do
not
want
to
see
them
survive.
They're
awful.
A
Let's
go
nick,
go
you're
the
last
one
to
go.
Please
go
ahead.
R
Yeah,
I
think,
thanks
for
this
presentation-
and
this
is
this-
is
a
useful
discussion.
Even
if
sometimes
I
find
the
reactions
frustrating.
I
think
it's
a
really
useful
presentation,
because
I
think
you're
getting
at
some
good
data
on.
R
On
what
sorts
of
emissions
are
coming
from
from
flights,
and
that
can
help
us
like
have
some
baselines
and
and
comparisons,
and
that
will
make
it
easier
for
us
to
actually
measure
the
impacts
of
of
these
different
conclusions
and-
and
maybe
we
would
have
different
alternatives
for
how
we
do
itaf
meetings,
whether
it's
the
number
of
meetings
or
who
travels
to
which
meetings
or
different
things
like
that.
But
I
think
having
those
numbers
will
be
really
useful.
R
R
Maybe
we
could
give
you
some
useful
feedback
on
the
best
ways
to
present
that
I
I've
certainly
found
some
of
the
reactions
frustrating
this
time
and
and
every
else
every
other
time
that
we've
discussed
this,
that
emissions
are
always
someone
else's
fault,
not
us,
or
we
do
such
good
things
that
our
emissions
are
actually
saving
long-term
emissions.
R
I
certainly
hear
that
from
from
every
group
that
discusses
this
topic,
not
just
itf,
I
think
everyone
thinks
that
their
travel
really
is
important,
but
but
it
might
also
just
be
useful
that,
like
hey,
we
can
start
to
write
down
some
of
those
discussions
since
we've
had
them
so
many
times
and
and
consider
those
arguments
and,
and
maybe
there's
a
useful
like
work
item
there
too.
R
I
I
I
know
those
are
difficult
discussions
and
I
know
we're
having
them
repeatedly
and
maybe
it's
worth
trying
to
start
writing
them
down
and
and
that
might
get
us
to
better
conclusions
in
in
the
long
run.
So
so
so
thank
you
for
for
doing
this,
and-
and
I
hope
we
can
turn
it
into
some
sort
of
more
systematic
approach
or
maybe
or
maybe
it'll
be
useful
data
for
what
jay
is
going
to
talk
to
us
about
as
well.
R
S
S
Right
so
I'm
gonna
talk
assuming
this
works
again
about
what
we're
doing
about
carbon
emissions
within
the
llc
and
what
we've
been
thinking
about.
So
we
started
doing
some
work
back
in
2020
about
this
and
put
it
on
hold
when
everything
moved
towards
online
meetings,
and
we
recently
picked
it
up
again.
I
discussed
this
with
daniel
a
couple
of
years
ago,
so
the
I'm
going
to
separate
this
out
into
two
elements:
one
is
measuring
carbon
emissions
and
the
second
one
is
about
offsetting
carbon
emissions.
S
The
all
right,
thank
you,
the
I'm
working
on
the
basis
that
we're
always
going
to
be
emitting
carbon
and
at
least
until
we
are
net
zero
and
so
carbon
offset
remains
a
a
potential
strategy
to
use,
even
if
the
number
of
meetings
is
reduced
and
that
anything
to
do
with
the
number
of
meetings
is
outside
of
scope.
For
me
to
be
particularly
interested
in
so
the
work
to
date
so
far
is
that
we've
used
consultants
to
calculate
emissions
for
the
last
six
on-site
meetings.
S
S
So
these
are
the
figures
that
we
have
in
metric
tons
of
co2
emitted
for
the
previous
six
meetings
in
terms
of
total
carbon
emissions
equivalent
carbon
equivalent.
So,
as
you
can
see,
this
is
into
air.
Travel
is
basically
the
big
one
here,
and
singapore
is
six
thousand.
You
know
is
much
larger
than
say
montreal
because
of
the
geographical
nature
of
the
people
that
we
have
coming.
S
What
I'd
like
to
do
on
carbon
calculations
in
future
is
have
correct
city
rather
than
just
assume
the
capital
city
take
into
account
the
mode
and
class
of
transport,
because
business
class
is
much
higher
emissions
than
economy
and
take
into
account
the
route,
and
by
mode
I
mean
the
whether
people
are
traveling
by
train
or
traveling
by
air
as
well.
Now,
of
course,
that
relies
on
people
giving
us
that
data.
S
But
if
we
get
that
data,
then
we
can
actually
get
something
quite
there
quite
clear
and
I'd
also
like
to
look
at
calculations
around
the
non-meeting
operations
and
to
use
the
calculation
standards
as
they
develop,
because
the
calculation
standards
are
changing
all
of
the
time.
S
I
wasn't
planning
to
do
this
yet,
and
I
was
planning
to
have
a
discussion
about
this,
but
the
questions
that
I
would
like
to
ask
the
community,
which
you
can
answer
now
or
I'll,
try
to
do
it
at
some
point
are
look,
I
don't
think
but
hey
well.
Are
there
any
objections
to
llc
just
getting
on
with
the
measurement?
S
All
right?
I
don't.
If
there
is,
let
me
know,
and
what
role
is
there
for
the
community
in
this
and
when
I
wrote
this,
I
didn't
really
know
about
daniel's
work,
though
daniel
and
I
have
spoken
about
this
for
some
time.
So
that's
number
one
is
about
measuring
our
emissions.
S
S
So
I'm
not
it's
not
clear
to
me
what
kind
of
community
census
is
needed,
none,
whether
the
llc
can
simply
just
pay
an
offsetting
fee
after
each
meeting
that
we
think
offsets
our
estimation
of
carbon
emissions
and
obviously
determining
what
kind
of
scheme
is
some
effort
behind
that
or
whether
we
need
consensus
to
do
that.
S
But
it's
not
the
same
way,
not
the
way
that
many
people
see
this,
which
they
think
is
that
good
offsetting
is
like
buying
some
rainforest,
for
example,
or
replanting,
some
rainforest
that
kind
of
stuff,
and
then
the
final
one
is
do
we
need
some
kind
of
policy
or
consensus
on
the
chosen
methods
and
schemes.
You
know
what
level
we
need
to
go
to
so,
and
I
I'm
not
clear
about
that.
S
So
I
my
my
plan
had
been
simply
to
write
this
up
a
little
bit
more
detailed
than
this
and
then
actually
go
to
the
admin,
discuss
list
and
ask
people
right.
What
do
we
do
about
this
and
how
do
we
take
this
forward
and
then
get
some
answers
which
may
that
have
meant
coming
back
here
or
going
to
gen
dispatch
or
something
like
that?
So
that's
where
I
am
so
far
any
questions
at.
O
So
one
thing
to
maybe
add
to
the
to
the
bottom
set
of
bullets
would
be
what
percentage
of
offset
do
you
want.
So
I
mean
the
natural
assumption
is
well.
We
should
just
do
100
right
because,
like
you
know
that
that
mitigates
the
damage,
maybe
more
than
that,
would
be
better,
maybe
less
than
that
we,
but
I
don't
think
less
than
that
would
be
better.
But
but
if
you,
if
you
really
care
about
this
problem,
then
it
kind
of
makes
sense
to
ask
that
question
like
like.
O
Could
the
ietf
meeting
actually
be
a
net
benefit,
as
opposed
to
it
just
break
even
and
the
other
thing
is,
you
know
the
one
thing
that
I
would
want
you
to
be
really
careful
about,
and
I
don't
know
whether
I
don't
actually
know
the
answer
to
those
questions
like.
Should
I
have
a
say
in
this,
or
am
I
just
some
jerk
talking
at
the
mic?
Probably
the
latter,
but
but
I'd
really
like
whoever
does
this
work
to
make
absolutely
sure
that
the
carbon
offsets
are
actually
doing
something.
O
So,
for
example,
you
use
the
example
of
buying
rainforest,
and
I
think
that
a
lot
of
that
is
actually
like
highly
questionable
and
so,
but
also
like
you
know,
relief
efforts
are
often
sort
of
very
paternalistic
and
don't
actually
address
the
needs
of
people,
and
so
they
wind
up.
You
know
you
wind
up
with
with
like
led
lights,
that
that
the
battery
runs
out.
O
They
can't
figure
out
how
to
get
it
working
again
and
it
winds
up
just
just
going
in
a
trash
heap,
but
now
you've
just
created
some
trash
and
not
actually
offset
the
carbon.
So
I'd
really
like
it.
If,
if
that
does
happen,
that
it'd
be
very
carefully
done
and
that
we
know
for
sure,
and
that
would
be
able
to
have.
You
know
reports
on
whether
whether
this
is
a
success
and
and
metrics
and
and
change
if
it
turns
out
that
the
thing
we
chose
actually
sucked.
S
That
there
are
schemes
for
accrediting
carbon
asset
stuff,
and
I
I
would
like
us
to
be
able
to
bring
in
these
consultants
to
have
conversations
with
us
and
explain
that
accreditation,
explain
those
schemes
and
us
to
have
a
broader
conversation
to
avoid
exactly
what
you're
describing
there
yeah.
D
Yeah
martin
duke
google,
is
there
a
precedent
for
the
llc
embarking
on
sort
of
corporate
social
responsibility
spending.
S
G
Hey
I
I
just
want
to
say
that
that's
not
entirely.
This
is
sean
turner,
I'm
sorry
to
jump
in
there.
That's
not
entirely
true.
We
do
have
some
esg.
You
know
equitable,
equitable
ethical,
investing,
that's
part
of
our
portfolio
already
with
the
the
the
money
that
we
have.
So
it's
it's
not
entirely
to
say
no.
S
And
we
also
have
plans
for
child
care
at
on-site
meetings
and
things
as
well.
So,
okay.
D
D
D
Nonprofit
and
a
lot
of
the
attendees
are
extremely
profitable
corporations,
who
could
certainly
choose
to
offset
their
carbon
emissions
of
their
employees
coming
to
itf
and
certainly
would
be
sort
of
a
net
win
if
we
could
leverage
that
instead
of
ietf
funds
in
terms
of
sort
of
the
economic
justice
of
the
whole
thing,
I
don't
know
how
to
do
that.
So
I'm
not
going
to
say
we
should
do
that
and
as
opposed
to
what
you're
saying,
but
if
there's
some
way
to
partner
with
some
of
these
sponsors.
S
R
Thank
you
for
doing
this,
and
I
I
know
that
we're
talking
pretty
quickly
about
the
offsetting
side,
but
actually,
I
think
the
measuring
side
was
the
more
useful
conclusion.
I
I
appreciate
that
you
you've
done
this
already,
with
with
travel
versus
other
emissions
of
the
meetings
and
and
as
I
think,
we've
heard
from
other
people.
R
I
I
think
it
would
be
really
useful
to
continue
that
measurement
and
that
I
would
focus
more
on
the
measurement
than
the
offsetting
both
because
I
think
we
need
to
reduce
emissions,
not
just
offset
them
for
many
of
the
challenges
of
effective
offsets
that
that
people
have
discussed
and-
and
because
you
know
the
situation
is
now
very
urgent,
as
I
think
we've
heard
from
the
ipcc.
R
So
we
need
to
do
some
reductions,
so
I
I
would
certainly
encourage
ietf
to
continue
with
the
measurement
and
maybe
documenting
that
and
sharing
that
with
the
full
community.
Not
just
schmoo
would
would
be
very
useful.
It'll
create
some
of
that
same
pushback
or
reaction,
but
I
think
the
data
will
be
very
useful
and
I
hope
you'll
do
it
without
needing
our
consensus
for
you
to
do
it.
S
Yeah
thanks
nick
yeah,
I
agree
with
you
about
the
measurement
I
have
to
admit.
I
thought
I
had
actually
actually
blogged
those
measurements
when
we
had
them
done
in
2020.
I
found
out
last
week
I
hadn't
so
sorry
for
sitting
on
those
for
that
long,
but
yeah.
A
Thanks
nick
so
yeah
I
kind
of
like
in
the
same
borders
like
nick
and
like
a
little
bit
on
the
same
house
like
mutton
before
as
well
so
like
yeah,
I
think
the
measurement
is
really
good
and
I
think
like
it
as
it
came
up
from
like
daniel's
presentation.
A
Also
look
at
like
you
know
how
much
like
you
know,
how
do
you
quantify
something
for
the
remote
participant
store
right
like
so,
we
can
measure
how
that
works
and
for
the
action
part
on
the
off
setting
right,
like
I
kind
of
like,
took
like
that's
point
into
mind,
and
I
think
it's
it'll
be
good
to
have
a
community
consultation
process
like
I
don't
know
about
whether
consensus
is
needed
or
not,
but
at
least,
like
you
know,
put
up
like
you
know
what
you're
thinking
off
and
so
on
and
try
to
get
input
from
the
community
on
what
they
think
right
like
see.
A
B
Yeah
live
second,
I'm
speaking
for
a
moment
as
one
of
the
the
directors
on
the
board
of
the
llc
right.
So
I
think
technically
it's
it's
in
the
scope
of
the
lc
board
to
manage
the
the
carbon
cost
of
of
the
organization
already.
I
still
think
we
probably
prefer
to
have
some
explicit
sort
of
indication
from
the
community
that
they
would
encourage
us
to
do
so
and
maybe
actively
to
to
manage
that
cost.
B
But
I
would
caution
that
we
don't
sort
of
micromanage
what
the
llc
board
should
investigate,
but
you
can
all
you
have
an
email
address.
You
can
send
us
suggestions,
but
I
I
don't
think
we
should
like
design
this
by
committee
and
rather
sort
of
basically
us
again.
The
community
tell
the
lc,
but
we
want
you
to
actively
do
something
here.
Let
us
know
what
you're
doing
and
then
you
know
make
good
choices.
That
spencer
would
say.
Thank
you.
L
Pete
resnick
yeah,
I
said
in
the
chat
room,
but
I
thought
I
would
just
say
it
so
that
others
hear
it.
The
llc
was
designed
so
that
the
community
didn't
have
to
come
to
consensus
for
every
business
decision,
whether
it's
where
our
meetings
are
held
or
what
tooling
we're
going
to
have
and
all
this
stuff.
That's
why
we
have
the
llc
as
a
separate
entity
and
so
doing
something
for
carbon
emissions.
It's
got
to
be
reviewable
by
the
community.
L
T
Hi
brian
drammell,
google,
plus
one
to
what
pete
said,
however,
as
as
lars
was,
was
speaking
about
yeah,
it
probably
does
make
sense
to
have
some
venue
for
the
community
to
provide
input
on
this.
B
I
agree,
but
I
also
think
that
that
once
the
llc
would
start
to
actively
do
something,
it
could
take
the
form
of
a
plenary
presentation,
for
example,
in
addition
to
having
maybe
some
more
nitty
gritty.
L
S
I
would
like
to
have
input
from
community
people
when
we
have,
you
know
some
kind
of
workshops
or
something
with
these
consultants.
You
know
there's
a
lot
of
things.
We
think
about
people,
bring
lots
of
different
points
of
view
and
think
quite
hard
about
stuff,
and
I
think
together
we
can
probably
end
up
with
something
better
than
if
it
was
just
left
to
me
to
do.
D
So
lars,
I
know
you
don't
want
to
micromanage
the
llc,
but
I
got
to
speak.
I
gotta
put
in
one
vote
for
the
fire
up
the
iatf
air
force
and
bomb
the
bitcoins
guys,
like
php,
suggesting
no
seriously
the
so
I
actually
think
about
this
a
little
more
in
terms
of
like
who
you
need
to
get
permission
from
it
strikes
me
at
the.
It
depends
what
the
incidents
oh,
this
is
going
to
cost
money.
A
D
Of
the
meeting
fee,
then
that's
a
community
issue
right
yeah.
No,
it's
absorbed
okay.
Well,
in
that
case
yeah
I
mean
in
that
case,
like
I,
I
I
don't
see
why.
Well
I
I
don't
know
that
community
objections
really
have
a
ton
of
standing.
I
mean
like
in
principle.
You
could
use
the
money
instead
to
like
lower
meaning
fees
or
something,
but
but
if
it's
not
gonna
actually
affect
people
the
status
quo
of
what
people
are
experiencing
at
meetings.
B
I
mean
thank
you.
One
argument
to
make
is
that
the
llc
board
is
supposed
to
steward
the
organization
right,
and
part
of
that
is
like
maybe
making
sure
that
there's
a
planet
to
have
meetings
on
in
the
future,
and
so
that
you
can
argue
that
carbon
offsetting
or
some
way
to
manage
the
carbon
footprint
is
therefore
inherently
something
that
that
we're
trying
to
do.
D
Yeah,
no,
I
I
think
that's
that's
a
reasonable
argument
and
I
guess
my
point
is
that
as
a
as
a
potentially
completely
indifferent
attendee
at
ietf,
like
nothing
is
changing,
but
behind
the
curtain
there's
some
offsetting
going
on
well
great,
like
if
you're
saying
I'm
going
to
jack
up
your
attendancy
by
250,
then
at
least
I
have
something
to
be
mad
about.
No,
I
mean.
B
S
A
D
Okay,
very,
very
well.
Yeah,
like
I
said,
like
I
said,
I
mean
ultimately
the
actual
impact
on
the
organization,
whether
it
be
donors
or
do
you
know.
Ultimately,
your
steward
is
the
donor's
money,
and
so,
if
I
I
I
imagine,
you've
already
consulted
them
or
we'll
do
soon
anyway,
yeah,
sorry,
I'm
saying
again,
but
but
lastly
yeah
so
like.
If
there's,
if
there's
no
impact
on
attendees,
then
it
seems
like
a
pretty
minor
thing.
A
I
think
I
think
mallory
are
up
next,
don't
get
between
people
on
the
cookies.
I
think
this
is
going
to
backfire.
H
Yeah,
I'm
actually
coming
to
the
queue
with
chair
hat
on.
I
think
that,
based
on
the
charter,
this
is
work,
that's
in
scope
and
previously
to
a
comment.
I
made
daniel
slides
guidance
for
individuals
or
companies
to
make
decisions
about
whether
or
not
to
participate
remotely
or
in
person.
H
This
could
be
very
useful,
so,
while
everyone
is
including
myself
encouraging
you
to
keep
doing
this
work
and
make
decisions
within
the
mandate
of
the
llc
without
having
to
consult,
I
do
hope
that
you
stay
in
touch
and
bring
some
of
this
work
back
to
schmoo
and
to
think
about
what
kind
of
guidance
that
might
look
like.
So
thanks
a
lot
jay.
S
R
No,
I
I
had
something
else.
I
I
was
curious,
whether
I
I
think
we
heard
a
few
times
that
oh
maybe
this
should
be
part
of
a
larger
discussion
either,
because
we
should
be
looking
at
other
benefits
or
other
emissions
impacts,
or
we
should
be
working
with
other
organizations
so
that
we
have
some
coordinated
response
that
I
think
I
heard
that
sort
of
feedback
that
people
wanted
to
only
decrease
our
emissions
if
we
were
doing
it
in
a
coordinated
way
with
others.
R
And
so
I
was
curious
if
that
conversation
needs
to
happen
somewhere
else
or
if
that
should
be
ietf
wide
or
working
with
other
organizations
outside
ietf
and
how
we
want
to
what
our
next
step
should
be.
For
that.
B
So
I
don't
know
that
we've
engaged
in
active
discussions
yet
with
other
organizations,
but
we
are
regularly
talking
to
like
isoc
and
icann
and
the
rars
and
and
organizations
like
that
little
w3c
and
we
can
certainly
put
it
on
the
agenda
for
one
of
those
sort
of
joint
discussions
to
see
if
they're
doing
anything
yet
inform
them.
Maybe
of
what
we're
planning
to
do
and
see.
If
there's
any
synergies,
you
know
they
might
have
good
ideas
that
we
didn't
have
yet.
A
B
There's
a
web
page,
but
it's
been
pretty
quiet.
I
think
we're
much
more
frequently
talking
to
the
organization
I
mentioned
earlier,
that
sort
of
their
colloquially
called
the
istar
organizations.
Okay,
perfect!
Thank
you.
Thanks.
A
So
I
don't
see
anybody
else
in
the
queue
jay.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
presentation
and
unless
somebody
has
something
in
the
next
minute,
like
or
30
seconds,
we
are
good
to
go
so
going.
B
Charter
approvals
on
the
agenda
for
the
next
isg
telechat,
so
you
should
be
recharted
soon.
A
Sounds
good.
Thank
you
very
much
lars
is
that
a
iesu
meeting
tomorrow,
I'm
just
kidding
thanks.
So
thank
you
very
much
all
for
coming
and
like
I
wish
I
could
have
been
there
like.
Thank
you
very
much
and
thanks
for
everybody
who
made
the
effort
to
be
there
and
thanks
for
everybody
for
up
and
like
some,
you
know
opportune
time
somewhere,
like
especially
like
mark's,
like
you
know,
always
like
in
the
wrong
side
of
things
as
people
said.
So.
Thank
you
very
much
for
like
staying
up
in
your
time
zone
as
well.
A
So
see
you
all
at
the
next
meeting.