Subject: Re: IETF 107 and Corona Virus?

From: "Scott Weeks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:07:39 -0800

-------------------------------
>> On a health/responsibility level (and, again with the knowledge 
>> of today), there simply is no reason to cancel the meeting.  It 
>> is still way more likely for an IETF attendee to have a traffic 
>> accident than to be impacted by COVID-19.
--------------------------------

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection.html

As of February 8, 2020, 7 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) 
have been confirmed in Canada.  Areas in Canada with confirmed cases 

Province            Confirmed cases
Ontario                 3
British Columbia        4

2016 population = 4,648,055

scott

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 17:16:17 -0500

--On Thursday, February 13, 2020 13:07 -0800 Scott Weeks
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> As of February 8, 2020, 7 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus
> (2019-nCoV)  have been confirmed in Canada.  Areas in Canada
> with confirmed cases 
> 
> Province            Confirmed cases
> Ontario                 3
> British Columbia        4

> 2016 population = 4,648,055

Scott, 

With the understanding that I'm not making any recommendation
(here or in my earlier note) other than (i) if there is any
reasonable possibility that the meeting would be canceled, that
should be done earlier rather than later and (ii) that we not
pretend that refunding the registration fees of those whose
visas are denied covers the potential costs to participants who
make arrangements to attend and then are forced to cancel...

First, in the interests of statistical accuracy, that population
figure is for British Columbia, not all of Canada, and the
population of British Columbia last year is estimated at a tad
over 5 million about half of whom are in the Vancouver metro
area.  That obviously strengthens your case if you are trying to
make a comment about percentages of the population around
Vancouver: even 4 out of 2 1/2 million is a rather small number.

On the other hand, the very nature of a significantly contagious
and epidemic disease (both of which have been assumed at this
point but some experts have claimed neither has been proven) is,
in the absence of effective mitigation techniques and almost by
definition, exponential.   If one made the (silly) assumption
that those four people would affect others exponentially for the
days between now and the start of the meeting, the entire
population of the province would be infected in under 12 days.
If one assumes that containment and mitigation are 50%
effective, i.e., that only two of those four succeed in
infecting others, it takes around 22 days which is still lots of
time.   Those number are certainly not predictions and they are
silly for many reasons, but my point is that "four people
confirmed as infected as of February 8 out of a five million
population" tells us little or nothing about the likely state of
things on March 21.  Not good, not bad, just nothing.

   john

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:34:06 -0600

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 16:16 John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> (ii) that we not

If you need a visa, generally it is not recommended to book travel or make
arrangements before getting that visa approved. Assuming a “visa on
arrival” always has risks associated.

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:00:30 -0800

Yes, but some authorities require proof of intention to travel (i.e., copy of a “ticket” whatever that means these days), before granting a visa. Catch-22.

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor & Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Cell: +1 415 370-4628
T-Mobile: +1 415 889-9821
Docomo: +81 90 3337 9311‬
http://protocoljournal.org

Sent from my iPhone

> On 13 Feb 2020, at 14:34, Job Snijders <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> If you need a visa, generally it is not recommended to book travel or make arrangements before getting that visa approved. Assuming a “visa on arrival” always has risks associated.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 20:15:43 -0500

--On Thursday, February 13, 2020 16:34 -0600 Job Snijders
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> visas are denied covers the potential costs to participants
>> who make arrangements to attend and then are forced to
>> cancel...
> 
> If you need a visa, generally it is not recommended to book
> travel or make arrangements before getting that visa approved.
> Assuming a "visa on arrival" always has risks associated.

Of course.  But that is not what I was saying.  At the cost of
more words, let me explain.  There are really two groups of
cases:

Group 1 - the visa situation:

If I need a visa, apply for one, pay the early registration fee,
and then the visa is denied (or just does not come through), the
IETF will refund the registration fee (this, as Jay's note
pointed out, has been IETF policy for a long time).  My booking
travel or making other non-refundable arrangements before the
visa arrives would be inadvisable, as you suggest, except that,
as Ole points out, that may be impossible in practice.  In
addition, making no arrangements before the visa is approved
would be almost certain to force one past the (now-expired)
early registration deadline, so the IETF's refund policy is a
good one.  However, if one delays making, e.g., air reservations
until the visa is approved and the visa doesn't arrive until
just before the last possible time to travel to the meeting, the
only available airfares could quite possibly be premium ones --
enough more expensive relative to fares available before the
visa application was completed to exceed the cost of the
registration fee.  So there is something of a gamble there and
the refundable registration fee doesn't really solve the
potential problem.    And my comment about refunding the
registration fees if visas are denied not eliminating the
financial risk still apply.

Those scenarios have almost nothing to do with the Corona Virus
situation except insofar as some countries react by denying
visas to much larger numbers of people, perhaps by origin
country.

Group 2 - the virus situation:

Now consider someone who successfully obtains a visa (or does
not need one), makes air and hotel reservations, and arrives at
the airport intending to fly to the meeting.  Then, because of
policy shifts, they are either denied boarding or arrive in the
destination country and are denied admission and sent home or,
worse, locked up somewhere for 14 days. Every country that I
know of reserves the right to do such things, visa or no visa,
if they believe or claim there is a significant public health
concern or some other issue.  The air fare is probably lost
(airlines may refund it as a good will measure but are not
required to do so, especially if the flight was already taken).
At least part of the hotel booking fees are lost because the
cancellation deadline was before the intended departure time.
Does the IETF refund the registration fee?  Current policy is, I
think, ambiguous, but the point was that, relative to those
other costs, the registration fee may be a drop in that
particular bucket.

And _that_ was the point I was trying to make.  If things get
complicated with visa delays, visas being canceled after being
issued, people being denied entry despite having visas, people
being forced to make potentially non-refundable airplane
reservations in order to obtain visas, or late meeting
cancellations,  let's not pretend that offering to refund the
registration fee under some circumstances eliminates the
financial damage.   

And I am _not_ predicting any of those things will happen.   I
am just pointing out that they are all within the realm of
possibility for some IETF participants and that, especially if
we continue to insist that people participate as individuals
(whether that is true for individual cases or not), there can be
significant financial and other costs and the IETF probably has
some responsibility for its actions other than "we will refund
the registration fee if you apply for a visa and don't get it".

best,
  john

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 16:57:27 +1300

> On 14/02/2020, at 2:15 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> worse, locked up somewhere for 14 days.

...

> think, ambiguous, 

Just in case anyone is confused by this, the recently announced policy is for a full refund in the case of *any* government imposed travel restrictions that prevent someone attending the meeting, which may include, but are not limited to, denial of exit, denial of entry, diversion, repatriation, isolation and quarantine.

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 23:10:12 -0500

Jay,

Thanks for the clarification.  Again, if something happens to
interfere with attendance and that is disruptive and unexpected,
I expect the registration fees are likely to be almost
insignificant relative to other costs, but it is good that the
IETF is being generous and clear about those costs anyway.

best,
  john

--On Friday, February 14, 2020 16:57 +1300 Jay Daley
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> not need one), makes air and hotel reservations, and arrives
>> at the airport intending to fly to the meeting.  Then,
>> because of policy shifts, they are either denied boarding or
>> arrive in the destination country and are denied admission
>> and sent home or, worse, locked up somewhere for 14 days.
> 
> ....
> 
>> Does the IETF refund the registration fee?  Current policy
>> is, I think, ambiguous, 
> 
> Just in case anyone is confused by this, the recently
> announced policy is for a full refund in the case of *any*
> government imposed travel restrictions that prevent someone
> attending the meeting, which may include, but are not limited
> to, denial of exit, denial of entry, diversion, repatriation,
> isolation and quarantine.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 07:07:53 +1100

Just to add one aspect of this: 

Several high-profile companies have imposed blanket travel restrictions on their staff. I am currently at APRICOT in Melbourne, Australia, and a regular conference speaker from Amsterdam, The Netherlands is unable to attend regardless of which route he takes to get here. Neither Australia nor The Netherlands are considered high-risk for this virus. I would expect that a refund for reg fees would apply for such cases too if a blanket travel ban were to include Canada.

Right?

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor & Publisher

Sent from my iPhone

> On 14 Feb 2020, at 14:57, Jay Daley <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:15:54 +1300

Ole

> On 17/02/2020, at 9:07 AM, Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Yes.  A blanket travel ban is a government imposed travel restriction and so we will provide a full refund in that instance.  To confirm, the list of possible government imposed travel restrictions now includes (but is not limited to):

	- denial of exit
	- denial of entry
	- diversion
	- repatriation
	- isolation
	- quarantine.
	- blanket travel bans

Jay

>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]
+64 21 678840

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 08:06:49 +1100

My point: These blanket travel bans are NOT “government imposed,” but rather a matter of *corporate* policy in many cases.

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor & Publisher

Sent from my iPhone

> On 17 Feb 2020, at 07:16, Jay Daley <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:25:12 +1300

> On 17/02/2020, at 10:06 AM, Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I see, thank you for explaining that.  

I hesitate to make policy on the fly and so all I will say for now is that if anyone find themselves in this position they should get in touch with us.  I will discuss with colleagues whether or not we need to amend the policy.

Jay

>>> http://protocoljournal.org <http://protocoljournal.org/>
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On 14 Feb 2020, at 14:57, Jay Daley <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>>> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]
+64 21 678840

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 20:37:57 -0500

--On Monday, 17 February, 2020 13:25 +1300 Jay Daley
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> My point: These blanket travel bans are NOT "government
>> imposed," but rather a matter of *corporate* policy in many
>> cases.
> 
> I hesitate to make policy on the fly and so all I will say for
> now is that if anyone find themselves in this position they
> should get in touch with us.  I will discuss with colleagues
> whether or not we need to amend the policy.

Jay,

Thanks.  This is part of what I was trying to get at several
days ago.  With emphasis that it is only a guess, I am guessing
that complete travel bans, or even bans on people arriving from
a particular country, imposed by governments that have not
already imposed such bans are unlikely.  The things that are, I
think, far more likely to prevent someone who intended to attend
from doing so are:

* Company world-wide travel bans of the variety Ole was
referring to.  I note that there has already been a message on
the list from a Sprint employee about such a ban.  I'm aware of
a few others, Ole's notes point to what I assume are more, and
that number seems likely to rise.

* 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 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.

best,
   john

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:57:46 +1300

John

> On 17/02/2020, at 2:37 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

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)

> hoping they will be perceived as fair-- seems to me to be quite

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

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]
+64 21 678840

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 22:18:25 +0100

I think one of the issues with discussions about creating remote meetings in these sorts of circumstances seems to necessitate someone being at a disadvantage from a timezone perspective.  It seems to me that one area to explore is analogous to our “share the pain” process for meeting locales, and seeing that WG virtual meetings in particular not unfairly disadvantage groups of participants.  I note that the RFC editor virtual meetings have occurred at different times precisely to follow this principle.  That idea might require refining: for instance, some WGs may be heavily Euro- or Ameri- or Asia-centric, allowing some weighting.

Also, Christian’s point about learning how and when to interject oneself as a remote participant is in play when there is an in-person meeting.  Pure virtual meetings do put everyone at that same disadvantage.

All of this to point out that as we eventually cycle back to the meeting modalities discussion some time from now with some data from the LLC, we should be thinking broadly about how we all get together… in person or virtually.