Conclusion of consultation on IETF-specific COVID management for IETF 117 and beyond

[IETF Executive Director <[e-mail]>]

The consultation [1] on removing IETF-specific COVID management rules for IETF 117 San Francisco and beyond, has now finished.

There was some feedback to the admin-discuss list [2] and quite a bit privately offlist.  Thank you to all of you who responded to this consultation.  Most of the feedback was in support of the proposed new policy, though it is best in situations like this to follow the maxim that consultation responses are for reading not counting.  The key points raised in the feedback are as follows:

1.  People on both sides of the argument have stated that this will make it less likely that they participate onsite if the decision is not the way they hope.  (It is not feasible to estimate the relative "losses" in either direction as the variables are too complex.)

2.  Most of those in favour of masks have noted that this is a health issue, either related to them or a relative that they want to safeguard, that is a specific risk from being in a dense group of people in an enclosed space without good ventilation.  Others have countered that this situation is not unique to IETF meetings, and that anyone travelling too/from an IETF meeting will be unavoidably exposed to multiple similar situations where people will not be required to wear masks.  This counter-argument is disputed, particularly in regards to the impact of ventilation.

3.  Linked to the health concern has been the view that wearing masks is relatively low-impact, a irritation rather than a showstopper, and that requiring people to wear masks to protect the health of others is very little to ask.  Others have countered that people with a health concern should manage that by their own actions and not require others to do it for them.

4.  Some of those against masks have noted that masks have a strong, adverse impact on communication and that good communication is vital for onsite meetings.  Others have countered that this is not the case, and that we compensate for that by allowing masks to be removed at key times.

5.  Most of those against masks noted that there are no longer mask mandates from public health authorities and that if our meetings were situations of significantly higher risk such that masks were needed, then this would be for the public health authorities to decide and not us.  Others have countered that we should be looking at the specifics of our meetings and assessing the risk of those.

6.  There was very little discussion about vaccinations.

7.  There was general consensus that those who test positive should continue to isolate and not participate onsite, but not on how long that was for.

8.  There have been multiple discussions about whether or not masks work and whether or not mask mandates work

9.  There was a concrete proposal that if the local regulations *recommend* masks, then we should *mandate* masks.


The IESG and IETF LLC have considered the feedback and agreed that it is the best interest of the IETF to continue as proposed in the consultation and remove all mask/vaccine requirements for IETF 117 and beyond, unless required to by local regulation.  In making this decision, the IESG and IETF LLC want to explicitly recognise that there are some who will not wish to participate onsite and to assure those people and the rest of the community that this decision is not taken lightly.  The two key reasons that this is considered in the best interests for the IETF are:

a.  We should be a rational, evidence-led organisation and in the case of COVID, where public health authorities have extensive data on which to base their public health guidelines, that means supporting and following those guidelines.

b.  The practicalities will become increasingly difficult if we remain an an outlier and without any perceived "independent legitimacy" to our stance such as public health guidance.  It will quite quickly become more difficult to enforce, more confrontational and much more of a distraction during the meeting.  

On point 7 above, participants who test positive will be asked to follow the local guidelines for isolation after a positive test, accepting that in some countries there are only recommendations not regulations and so participants would be free to continue in the meeting.  If you have concerns about this point, then please raise them - it may be that further discussion/consultation is required on this specific point.

On point 9 above, if local public health authorities recommend masks in a setting like an IETF meeting, then we will also recommend them, but we will follow the public health advice and not mandate them.

Finally, as a reminder, the IETF continues to invest in improving the remote participation experience with the aim of making it as good as possible, and seeks feedback after each meeting to assess if that improvement is being achieved.


Thanks again for your feedback.


[1]  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/usQEwqk9iFPmLm9awlwOCun7y7g/
[2]  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/admin-discuss/?q=COVID%20management%20IETF%20117


-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]