RE: Further update on COVID-19 (Coronavirus) and IETF 107 Vancouver

["Roni Even (A)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
I participated in tsvwg virtual meeting last week that had about 30 participants using IETF webex. If this is a demonstration of holding a virtual meeting in my view we are not ready. I kept losing the audio of the meeting and I was not alone, others complained in the chat window. The suggestion  was to use a PSTN connection to the meeting and not the IP one. This mean that I will have to pay for international call since there was no local free call in number.  Note that it was an audio only plus data, no video.

Roni Even

From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:13 PM
To: Joseph Potvin; [e-mail]; IETF Announcement List; IETF Rinse Repeat
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker
Subject: RE: Further update on COVID-19 (Coronavirus) and IETF 107 Vancouver

Joseph,

The IETF's current practice of holding three in-person meetings per year is not sustainable. If not today, at some time in the future, the IETF will be forced to hold a fully on-line meeting. This may be motivated by:


  *   The next public health issue
  *   Environmental concerns
  *   Geopolitical or visa concerns
  *   Economic concerns

Since we are going to have to learn how to hold an on-line meeting sooner or later, why not now?

                                                             Ron



From: ietf <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Joseph Potvin
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 11:00 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; IETF Announcement List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; IETF Rinse Repeat <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: Further update on COVID-19 (Coronavirus) and IETF 107 Vancouver

+1  In my assessment, IETF107 presents a rare but valuable opportunity for the most Internet-knowledgeable community there is, to competently demonstrate to the world how to calmly but rapidly shift a large in-person+online conference to a successful Plan B full-online conference. Any weaknesses in performance would be worth addressing as guidance (and as practical utilities) for other international events that are otherwise facing outright cancellation. What better community than this to illustrate how to minimize the negative impacts?

"Precaution ... simply urges that time and space be found to get things right ... the crux of precaution lies in the rigour of taking similar care in avoiding the scientific error of mistakenly assuming safety, to avoiding mistakenly assuming harm." (The Guardian: "Why the precautionary principle matters" https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/08/precautionary-principle-science-policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www..theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/08/precautionary-principle-science-policy__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UJ-hZ0_ppNzyqMBosQBNyln-8S0LnorJG4n-CDM_lG4QDfvdQJ2TqY1nMuRihHKO$> ) This article is helpful because it clearly distinguishes "risk" from "uncertainty". Regular flu has known risk factors. Several key characteristics of COVID-19 remain uncertain.

At minimum, prompt work towards a Plan B also provides a way "to pressure-test preparedness and emergency response plans" (Emergency Preparedness Partnerships https://emergencypreparednesspartnerships.com/a-blast-from-the-past-influenza/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/emergencypreparednesspartnerships.com/a-blast-from-the-past-influenza/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UJ-hZ0_ppNzyqMBosQBNyln-8S0LnorJG4n-CDM_lG4QDfvdQJ2TqY1nMmhytGew$> )

Business continuity plans prioritize resilience, not rigidity.

Joseph Potvin
Executive Director, Xalgorithms Foundation
Mobile: [phone]<tel:[phone]>
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.xalgorithms.org <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.xalgorithms.org__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UJ-hZ0_ppNzyqMBosQBNyln-8S0LnorJG4n-CDM_lG4QDfvdQJ2TqY1nMh9-DNE7$>


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:21 AM Andrew Alston <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Personally, I think that holding this meeting is a risky move - and I'm not sure it's a responsible one.

Yes - it can be argued that the individuals who are travelling to the meeting are taking the risk knowingly and be it on their heads - the problem is - it goes far beyond those individuals.  Multiple multi-nationals are shutting down offices in various places, there are corporate travel bans going into effect (and the current statement says that if you register and want a refund, it has to be a government imposed travel ban)

Right now from my perspective - we've been lucky over here in Africa where it hasn't arrived yet - but - if it does - there is no real infrastructure to deal with something like this - and it could be absolutely disastrous - and so - I certainly don't want to be anywhere near anyone that has been in a large conference, with people all over the world, when the virus can be carried without any symptoms - transmitted - and you can be all the way back home again before you even know you have it.

So - I question if holding a meeting like this at this point in time - rather than using the technology we have available and going entirely remote - is really a responsible choice.

Andrew


From: ietf <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Phillip Hallam-Baker
Sent: Wednesday, 26 February 2020 16:56
To: Davey Song <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; IETF Announcement List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: Further update on COVID-19 (Coronavirus) and IETF 107 Vancouver

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:42 AM Davey Song <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
What I can do to help the situation as a Chinese IETFer,  is to cancel all travel and stay at home....

Thanks to the Internet, I can participate IETF remotely. Good luck!

Davey

Exactly. The point I am not seeing raised here is whether it is a good idea to hold an international meeting and potentially spread the virus further. This is not just about us.

This may not turn out to be a re-run of SARS. A large amount of the infrastructure that existed to deal with pandemics has been shuttered since. The way our political elites manage risk is to observe when disaster has been avoided and conclude that this shows the controls intended to mitigate those risks were unnecessary.

A question that we may well have to consider is the possibility that Madrid is cancelled by government fiat. We are currently in the complacency phase, what will follow if matters continue is panic.


Juniper Business Use Only