Re: [Manycouches] Follow up on consultation on IETF 112 and COVID-related restrictions

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

> On 3/08/2021, at 12:18 PM, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jay,
> 
>> On 3 Aug 2021, at 9:49 am, IETF Executive Director <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> The assessment criteria have been amended based on feedback to align with draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting [2] with the inclusion of two new tests:
> [...]
>> - The meeting will not result in a significant unbudgeted financial loss for the IETF LLC
> 
> That can be read two ways:
> 
> 1. The meeting will not go ahead on-site if there's an associated significant loss (e.g., due to less registration revenue, higher venue costs, etc.)
> 2. The meeting will be required to go on-site if there's an associated significant loss (e.g., due to contracts being broken, etc.)
> 
> Which is intended?

Each of the criteria needs to be read as "The onsite meeting cannot go ahead unless …" so it means the former.

> 
> The text in the draft is somewhat different - it requires the LLC to *assess* the 'financial impact of continuing a meeting, or implementing any of the possible remedies', and that the 'LLC SHOULD cancel a meeting if it judges a meeting to be logistically impossible or inconsistent with its fiduciary responsibilities.' That SHOULD only stipulates cancellation, it doesn't impact a decision as to whether to go virtual or not.
> 
> 
>> - the IETF should take on certain responsibilities should someone be infected.  While the IETF advises and supports participants and will continue to do so, the established practice is that participants are ultimately responsible for all health related matters.
> 
> Please elaborate on "the established practice." I'm aware of only one sizeable international event occurring now: the Olympics. Their playbook is here:
>  https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/Olympic-Games/Tokyo-2020/Playbooks/The-Playbook-Athletes-and-Officials-V3.pdf
> ... and as you can see on page 32, they have a protocol for handling sick attendees.
> 
> If you mean the *IETF's* established practice, that may be true -- but every participant will need to think very carefully about the myriad of ways things could go wrong, and of the difficulty in obtaining international travel insurance that covers COVID-related situations. While participants who have sponsorship from large, well-resourced organisations are likely to shrug this off, it could be a serious impediment for participation by others -- thereby affecting our diversity on yet another axis.
> 
> I think the underlying issue here is worth considering explicitly: Is the IETF 'just another industry conference' or is it a community gathering? There's no 'right' answer, but the direction we choose is going to have significant effects on how we operate, and how we're perceived.

This does only refer to established IETF practices and it’s certainly something worthy of a community conversation as the details need unpicking (if we are to understand the implications) and documenting.  I’m not against it, it’s just too big a change to introduce in a brief consultation.  

If diversity is to be part of that conversation then the issue goes much broader as international travel in and of itself has a major negative impact on diversity.  On the international conference circuit before I joined the IETF, I regularly heard from people from some African, Middle Eastern, Asian and Pacific countries about their constant difficulties in obtaining visas, flight availability, transit difficulties, hostile boarder guards, and more that I have almost never experienced.  Tackling that suggests a range of actions worth exploring, such as if the IETF should revive the fellowship program that ISOC once ran and pay travel/accommodation fees for a few to bring in new people.

Jay
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 

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