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

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

Mike

> On 17/04/2020, at 1:03 PM, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 4/16/2020 7:55 PM, IETF Executive Director wrote:
>> * Any form of self-isolation requirement on arrival of more than 24 hours
>> 
>> Unacceptable travel barriers that will be counted on a per-country basis are:
>> 
>> * Any form of self-isolation requirement on return of more than 24 hours unless consistent with general self-isolation requirements
>> 
>> 
> Hi - This looks like a pretty good set of parameters.    The only things that stuck out for me were the two items above plus one other item that I think is missing.
> 
> 24 hours is either too short or too long and I'm not sure which. It's unclear to me that there's any useful data that would inform the need for self-isolation for such a short period of time. Conversely, we're coming back from 7 or so days in a crowd which might suggest a longer period.  I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I'm pretty sure 24 hours isn't it.  Is there guidance (WHO or otherwise) suggesting this period or another value?

This isn’t a health/science based duration, it’s our view on the maximum length of time that we think is acceptable for participants to endure.  As you say, given the current guidance it is unlikely that any self-isolation requirements would be less than 14, but agreeing this now may be useful for future unknown situations.

> The item I think that may be missing as a disqualifier is "assembly restrictions that would prohibit the gathering of sufficient IETF attendees as to make the meeting productive". E.g. "Gatherings of more than 100 people are prohibited".

Yes, good point.

> Last: I'd suggest  "Which must be at warning level 2 or below" vs "Which must be below warning level 3".

thanks
Jay

> 
> Mike
> 
> 

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