Re: IETF in July

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

Actually, I’m more and more convinced that we can make it without the need of canceling.

 

And also, I think it has been proven with the late IETF107 cancellation, that in terms of recovering traveling expenses, it is better to do it close to the event dates. I was not able to cancel and fully recover my flight to Vancouver (expected to be flying today), until a couple of days ago. I’ve another flight to the canceled LACNIC in Cali (Colombia) in May, which I can’t yet recover, because some airlines right now only provide refunds or even vouchers for flights up to 31st of March, but I’m convinced that if I wait, this will be extended, or the prohibition from Colombia to flight there or enter there from EU will force the airline to refund.

 

Regarding the southern hemisphere. I’ve just now made the exercise of looking at the list of countries. They are mainly African countries, some LAC countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, partially Brazil and Ecuador, even Colombia in a small part of the country).

 

The average number of IETF participants from those countries, looking at summer IETF in Europe (because I know some people doesn’t go to IETF in summer, and some others only go/not go to IETF when it is in a specific region), seems to be close to 10-12 people. 99% of them come from LAC (mainly Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil). There were more countries (including Africa), when the ISOC fellowships were available, which is no longer the case.

 

Then we have numbers of participants that come from Australia and New Zealand, sometimes Indonesia. In this case seems more variable, but still in the order of 15 people.

 

I will say that we are talking about 30 people in total. However, if you look at the LAC countries, several countries are already in quarantine, others considering it.

 

In think it is feasible to consider that in the worst case, we can lose about 2/3 of those participants, so about 20 people (I think it will be much less, but just being conservative).

 

Someone could consider that this is against RFC8718, but I don’t think so. 1st, because as said, I don’t think it is such big impact (again, if the situation recovers by May or early June, so almost 6-8 weeks before the meeting), 2nd, because my view of the document is for initial selection of the venue, not so much for changes in the situation of the chosen location (as indicated by the document, it remains the responsibility of the IASA).

 

Summer IETF is typically around 1.000 participants, so 20 people is a 2% impact. I was expecting more people coming being in Spain, may be even 1.300-1.400 participants, but not sure now. It is clear that if the situation recovers around May-June, the tourism industry will need to take up and this will mean very nice offering. So, in that case, more people could be interested in participating to IETF with families and taking advantage of a well-deserved vacations after the bad times.

 

Look at the Olympics, which have a much more complex logistics, and have almost same timing us ourselves. They haven’t cancelled. Clearly as more they wait, more implications them have. I don’t think it is a matter of just faith, but instead they are convinced that the situation will recover in time, at least at the time being.

 

I also saw Ole email and the linked picture. I think it demonstrates that it is a matter of confinement and huge testing campaign.

 

And we need to be optimistic!

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 21/3/20 1:16, "ietf en nombre de Robert Raszuk" <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:

 

Hi Jordi,

 

I know how you feel. But looking at the full picture just like I was hoping YVR get's early cancellation - the decisions were not being taken on time. It took IETF WG chairs to cancel WG meeting one by one for IESG to react. Then LLC followed. 

 

With covid-19 borders are closed and various local restrictions are put in place in most countries not to ban the virus or stop the wider spread. Virus is already here and it is here to stay. It is only to delay mass infections to happen in a peak time which would overload any medical system any country can afford. So the better protection given country puts in place the longer recommendation for isolation will apply. 

 

Then just consider southern hemisphere ... the virus is not there yet massively, but sad to say likely will be there.. So in July are you going to deny to attend IETF to anyone living south of the equator ? 

 

I think till effective treatment or working vaccine is in place we will likely need to adjust to reality we are in. 

 

Stay safe !

R.

 

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 12:17 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=[e-mail]> wrote:

The confinement in Spain is for one more week (started one week ago already), but I predict that will be extended 2 more weeks and I think is the right thing to do now. May be even 3-4 weeks (so in total 1.5 months).

I will like to be optimist at the time being, especially after having taken 20 years to organize it in Madrid!

I think it all depends on what is the status by mid-April, maximum end of April, and not just in Spain.

If this confinement works in Spain, and other countries (especially those which have participants of IETF), also do a similar 1-2 months confinement NOW, then borders could reopen and everything should be fine by end of May.

I think the decision should be taken at that point.

However, if any country is not doing the confinement, I will say, that country is going to be banned by the other countries, in order to avoid the Covid19 coming back.

The situation in Spain has been worst because the government has not taken the right decision:
1) Initially they brought back from China Spanish citizens and quarantined them mandatorily. Fine!
2) However, surprisingly, when was clear that in Italy was widely spread, they didn't take any measurements to ask for mandatory quarantine for those coming from Italy. *Crazy and irrational* no sense compared to 1.

Instead, countries from Africa and LAC, since the very early stages, have closed the borders to citizens from all over EU (and China). China itself is doing now the same. I'm convinced now that this is the right way to stop a wider spread.

Regarding the situation in Spain, I'm sure that by the next week or so, we will reach the peak, with about 35.000-40.000 infected and probably 5.000 deaths (right now is about 1.100) and then will start going down very quickly if the confinement continues for 1-2 more weeks.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet



El 20/3/20 21:50, "ietf en nombre de Carsten Bormann" <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:

    On 2020-03-20, at 21:42, Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]..org> wrote:
    > 
    > Folks,
    >  
    > Is anybody planning contingencies for a fully remote IETF in July? (I don’t mean to be a pessimist, but planning for a worst-case scenario is never a bad idea).

    I personally believe there is not more than a 5 % chance of the physical meeting actually taking place.  I would *love* to be surprised.

    Grüße, Carsten





**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.





**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.