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

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 21 April 2020 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf108planning@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf108planning@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD2A73A0968; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 11:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_AFFORDABLE=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7hgR3SN11ZxM; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 11:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22c.google.com (mail-oi1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0AA73A095C; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 11:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id t199so12820952oif.7; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 11:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=A1mL53WlXtMTHT7IfyIQLw0m7lJlLeM8+n7ZumPJiQ4=; b=DzytArpUfDVkWvdN92vgubNN10501eA9dVUeNbx5ZIhadxdwGf7EaaCywDDqzg/bK6 TUtnOkpBO2KRIzfyxhtqGGQ0ZtV+yk42s98yI+lViNEU4xdms2Q0JctOp4CHX4I92U/m oOCThlKsZ1FG+RNDdIVg6RACvL35QtIqyD4VhOQs3L5nWYmXd9ze3NlwdjgK2sLy4jgd FsK2TqhyMpuol3cunp1Q/Yigt+tBGb/EU0pgQi/4aMs9kNSD6lk2b23YQB0tHMsDeBFr UHuaOleRBDEefHjIsJEOgQ+o0PJNPcWiHaMgNmwyhmGjrwAosgrXo9v73lo1MvGHCuZM xbgg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=A1mL53WlXtMTHT7IfyIQLw0m7lJlLeM8+n7ZumPJiQ4=; b=ojBITaNkgZAVoNP7SUYMEvuvFvYxW8g7SVcCCTJwMM4kXesLa6f+QZ5j0Qj1SoJtqo hOwocfhBNCKBl+8LtrdbETJsRAwhPsUmGBJlzbq8+8dZMUe9Up6G7m91tK+vHe/PgYOB +I4n6Zb5kE1E14hahcDORmvQ3vAQGG6mIuthr4tm0giqjVRKqJYbvhW7h3KddQNc7nJ+ QW2HNp+yeXu5qNRTUlmMXuZHRkx7ONdl70rX5qAJiS8tK2IzPvFzQeo/OKKSSTIZZmVF F2/dDfFcbbg1+/BWZ0ACCN+IXYhrgzyNWHEwygB6qPs/aSr7WuJqVGPork75bUZ05U8W tJ9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuavG5ia9Iw35OWHBN1fLXSQaMB60javijdqvRRgdM8XGkO7wPhB txljZdtc0ELdF5ihTcUFrCO48+yInJWDKz3hNzg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypL2Hw4U8PxJCoFNXfU7VQMNnZ2ewRX8S92cmpXPe1/U/fX/CoarTfLZxmk+TcYCPMuqCgVL/eNFAMM29RlwjaQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:919:: with SMTP id w25mr3823609oih.111.1587492992510; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 11:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ca4cb8af-520a-5591-736d-ec8e812479d5@comcast.net> <00E686E5-C058-4CE4-962B-3D234BE0394F@ietf.org> <a087c0ef-29dd-129c-fd56-e407b189a754@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <a087c0ef-29dd-129c-fd56-e407b189a754@comcast.net>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 14:15:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH4rpJEH7XHV3WF6oE4GNUkRH8rX5ZLpeAE_5khyewnYaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Cc: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, ietf108planning@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e6ecee05a3d1034d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf108planning/iAm3yS0hQoU6mhDIvZHjx21zuws>
Subject: Re: [Ietf108planning] Assessment criteria for decision on in-person/virtual IETF 108
X-BeenThere: ietf108planning@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf108planning.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf108planning>, <mailto:ietf108planning-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf108planning/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf108planning@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf108planning-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf108planning>, <mailto:ietf108planning-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 18:16:37 -0000

Please do have AMS and other contractors/employees factored into the
decision process.  Their ability to decide for themselves is different from
others.

Additionally, in the church, they say absolution is a gift and it certainly
can be a gift.  If some feel pressure to attend out of some obligation,
then they will attend, but will be relived if they are told they don't have
to do it.  In other words, you'll have some attendees willing to go that
would rather not.

I don't think I'll be able top travel through the year per my employer
unless something changes radically.  There will also be budget constraints
in the coming year(s) in addition to virus concerns for employers and
self-financed individuals.

Best regards,
Kathleen

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:20 PM Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
wrote:

> On 4/17/2020 5:44 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
>
> Mike
>
> On 18/04/2020, at 9:35 AM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
> <mstjohns@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> 
> Jay/Stewart -
>
> A piece of the puzzle may be the availability and cost of medical travel
> insurance.   For grins I just priced the cost of insurance based on having
> the November IETF either in London or Bangkok and it came out about $60 for
> either of those destinations.    The benefit included things like a $1M
> coverage of medical evacuations and a $150K non-medical evacuation.
>
> Adding to the list of criteria Jay posted earlier - maybe "Availability of
> affordable medical insurance with no exclusions for the destination
> including any related to Covid-19"?
>
>
> That was raised during our internal discussions and we rejected the idea
> as it is too difficult to assess the cost for people travelling from all of
> the countries that participants come from.  Let me know if you can see a
> way around that.
>
> Jay
>
> --
>
>
> Hi Jay -
>
> Have you considered reaching out to the IETF's and ISOC's insurance
> companies to ask them about this?   I'd think they'd have a good grasp of
> rates around the world or know where to get them.  Alternately, ask them if
> they'd be willing to issue medical insurance travel plans for the IETF
> meeting attendees or can refer to an underwriter who would?
>
> I don't know if any of this is viable, but it may suggest some ways to
> calm fears for whatever the next in public meeting turns out to be.
>
> Later, Mike
>
>
>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen