Re: IETF 107 and Corona Virus?

Jay Daley <> Mon, 17 February 2020 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A71B120091 for <>; Sun, 16 Feb 2020 17:57:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aMElQGOWnKMh; Sun, 16 Feb 2020 17:57:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from macbook-pro.localdomain (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 760A4120024; Sun, 16 Feb 2020 17:57:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Jay Daley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EDBE39B7-2EC0-44E1-ACD3-9AD48157CBD6"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: IETF 107 and Corona Virus?
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:57:46 +1300
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: IETF Discussion <>
To: John C Klensin <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 01:57:51 -0000


> On 17/02/2020, at 2:37 PM, John C Klensin <> wrote:
> * Government-imposed restrictions, not on travel, but on
> post-travel activities or equivalent, such as 14 day quarantines
> after arrival.  I think that, if Canada imposed a 14 day
> quarantine on arrivals from certain cities or countries
> (effectively requiring around March 7 for the IETF meeting) or
> if a participant's country of residence required a 14 day
> quarantine period on return after IETF, it is a fairly safe bet
> that many companies would say "can't have you away from work for
> three weeks, so you are not allowed to go".

I find it difficult to conceive that any restriction that prevents someone from travelling to where they want to go can be described as anything other than a travel restriction.

However, for the avoidance of doubt, the list now includes (but is again not limited to) the following government imposed travel restrictions:

	- denial of exit
	- denial of entry
	- diversion
	- repatriation
	- isolation (including on the way to the meeting, at the meeting and returning from the meeting)
	- quarantine (including on the way to the meeting, at the meeting and returning from the meeting)
	- blanket travel bans (not including corporate, yet)

> I don't expect you to make policy on the fly about such things
> and hope no one else does either, but these are the sorts of
> things that are likely enough that establishing a policy and
> making it clear -- rather than making case-by-case decisions and
> hoping they will be perceived as fair-- seems to me to be quite
> important.

Again for the avoidance of doubt, that is what I meant with my previous message about not making policy on the fly and consulting with colleagues about an amendment to the policy


Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
+64 21 678840