Re: [Ietf108planning] Assessment criteria for decision on in-person/virtual IETF 108

[Andrea Glorioso <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

Just out of curiosity, why are the discussions under points a-d
confidential?

I'm not disagreeing per se, just trying to understand the rationale.

All the best,

Andrea


Il ven 17 apr 2020, 01:56 IETF Executive Director <[e-mail]>
ha scritto:

> As set out in our recent email [1], we have developed an assessment
> framework and decision making process for the decision on whether or not
> the in-person IETF 108 Madrid can go ahead.  The proposed framework and
> process is detailed below and we welcome community feedback.
>
> Given the current conditions in Spain and around the world, the framework
> is based on the assumption that these conditions would have to
> significantly improve for the in-person meeting to be held.  The assessment
> will consider some of the venue selection criteria specified in RFC 8718,
> adapted to the situation we are in.
>
>
> == Assessment Framework ==
>
> As a matter of principle, we want an assessment framework that, as much as
> possible, uses independent, trusted data to enable an objective
> assessment.  However, as this is an entirely novel situation, high quality
> data sources are not yet available and so there will be, by necessity, a
> significant degree of subjective judgement in our assessment.
>
> The assessment criteria we have chosen are based on the venue selection
> criteria specified in RFC 8718 [2], both the mandatory criteria of section
> 3.1 and the important criteria of section 3.2.1 “Venue City Criteria”,
> which we believe make up the most relevant and recent advice from the
> community that can be applied in these circumstances.  If any of the
> mandatory venue selection criteria from section 3.1 of RFC 8178 cannot be
> met then the in-person meeting will not go ahead. Those criteria relate to
> the physical facility (space, access, network).
>
> The important venue selection criteria from section 3.2.1 of RFC 8718,
> listed below in a different order from the RFC, are more complex to assess
> as explained below:
>
> 1. “Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this Venue are
> acceptable.”
>
> When considering our data sources we want to use both local sources and
> independent sources to ensure any possible bias is minimised. Our primary
> local sources will be the official Madrid Tourism COVID-19 site [3] and our
> local contacts and if either indicates that any form of local emergency
> conditions still prevail then the in-person meeting will not go ahead.
>
> The selection of independent sources is more problematic and we have
> chosen to use the US CDC and their travel advisory for Spain [4], which
> must be below Warning Level 3 (avoid nonessential travel) or the in-person
> meeting will not go ahead.  While recognising that the choice of a single
> US source may be contentious, we believe this is the best choice because
> all of our contracts have a force majeure clause that specifically lists
> the US CDC.
>
> 2. “Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are likely to
> be such that an overwhelming majority of participants who wish to do so can
> attend.  The term "travel barriers" is to be read broadly by the IASA in
> the context of whether a successful meeting can be had.”
>
> Assessment of this criteria has two parts to it.  The first is a
> definition of what are unacceptable travel barriers and the second is
> deciding how to apply the “overwhelming majority” test.  Unacceptable
> travel barriers come in two forms, those that would preclude an in-person
> meeting entirely and those that will be counted on a per-country basis for
> an “overwhelming majority” test (as explained below):
>
> Unacceptable travel barriers that would preclude an in-person meeting are:
>
> * Spanish borders closed to visitors
> * Any form of quarantine on arrival in Spain
> * Any form of self-isolation requirement on arrival of more than 24 hours
> * Any new form of health-related travel restriction imposed by Spain or
> the EU that is inherently discriminatory in nature (e.g. not based on
> science).
>
> Unacceptable travel barriers that will be counted on a per-country basis
> are:
>
> * Any form of quarantine on return.
> * Any form of self-isolation requirement on return of more than 24 hours
> unless consistent with general self-isolation requirements
> * Government travel bans
>
> A requirement to prove COVID-19 immunity, vaccination or similar will be
> acceptable provided it is not inherently discriminatory, though calculating
> the impact of that is likely to be problematic.
>
> In order to assess this criteria, in particular the “overwhelming
> majority” requirement, and the criteria below, we will use a similar
> methodology.  Using our records of attendance at recent European IETF
> meetings we will develop an expected distribution of participants by
> country (i.e. how many participants we would typically expect from each
> country).  If we judge that more than 20% of expected participants cannot
> attend, based on this country distribution, then the in-person meeting will
> not go ahead.
>
> Using the definitions above of unacceptable travel barriers, we will sum
> the percentages derived above from each country that is judged as having
> unacceptable barriers and if that figure is greater than 20% then the
> in-person meeting will not go ahead.
>
> 3. “Travel to the Venue is acceptable based on cost, time, and burden for
> participants traveling from multiple regions.  It is anticipated that the
> burden borne will generally be shared over the course of multiple years.”
>
> Using the same basic methodology as the criteria above, for this criteria
> we will aim to assess flight availability for each country to get to Madrid
> and if less than 50% of normal flights/routes between the two countries are
> available or the fares are significantly above normal then we will work on
> the assumption that the burden of travel for people from that country is
> not acceptable.
>
> We will then sum the expected percentages of participants from each
> country that is judged as having unacceptable travel burdens and if that
> figure is greater than 20% then the in-person meeting will not go ahead.
>
>
> Finally, we note that there is the possibility that the result of this
> assessment is that an in-person meeting can go ahead but corporate travel
> bans remain in place and/or many people are unwilling to travel, in which
> case we will engage in a subsequent process after May 15 to establish the
> viability of an in-person meeting, as we did for IETF 107.
>
>
> == Process ==
>
> This process has been designed to respect the various delegated roles with
> the IETF leadership and ensure there are appropriate checks and balances in
> place.
>
> a. On or about 11 May 2020 the IETF Executive Director will produce a
> draft report using the assessment framework set out above with a
> recommendation on whether or not an in-person meeting can be held.  This
> draft report will be confidential and distribution restricted to the IESG,
> IRTF Chair, IAB Chair, LLC, Secretariat and meeting host primary contact.
> b. On 12 May 2020 the IESG, IRTF Chair, IAB Chair, LLC and Secretariat
> will meet to discuss the draft report and any changes that need to be made.
> The objective will be to get consensus on the report’s recommendation among
> the IESG, the IRTF Chair, the IAB Chair, the LLC Board, and the IETF
> Executive Director.
> c. By 14 May the IETF Executive Director will produce a final report.  At
> this stage the final report will be confidential and distribution
> restricted to the IESG, IRTF Chair, IAB Chair, LLC, Secretariat and meeting
> host primary contact.
> d. On 14 May 2020 the LLC Board will meet and officially sign off the
> recommendation.  The LLC will then officially inform the IESG of its
> recommendation.
> e. On 15 May 2020 the decision will be announced and the final report made
> public.
>
>
> We now welcome your feedback about the assessment framework. Please send
> your feedback to [e-mail] (which will reach the IESG,
> IRTF Chair, and IETF Executive Director) by April 27. As you will have
> seen, this is a very complex situation requiring complex analysis and so
> please make any feedback as practical and implementable as possible within
> the published time frame.
>
>
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Si153ZcOZzl83UgPfhD7zVgOkjg/
> [2]  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8718
> [3]  https://www.esmadrid.com/en/information-coronavirus
> [4]
> https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/destinations/traveler/none/spain?s_cid=ncezid-dgmq-travel-single-001
>
>
> Jay Daley, IETF Executive Director
> Alissa Cooper, IETF Chair
> Colin Perkins, IRTF Chair
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>