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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Bron,

 

 

El 8/5/20 6:06, "ietf en nombre de Bron Gondwana" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx en nombre de brong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:

 

(up-front disclaimer: this is a drive by commentary and I don't have any specific knowledge or skill in this area, I'm just an opinionated jerk on the internet.  In my experience this makes me fit right in here...)

 

On Fri, May 8, 2020, at 08:10, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

 

El 7/5/20 23:42, "ietf en nombre de Jay Daley" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx en nombre de jay@xxxxxxxx> escribió:

 

    *  Feedback not to use the Madrid Tourism Site because "while this is probably a good source, there may be some delay in some of the touristic activities re-opening, that should not be part of our assessment".  

    =>  This site is the primary site for informing visitors on the status of hotels, restaurants, and local transport, all of which are necessities..

 

[Jordi] Is the wrong site. There is a very simple thing to observe: It has NOT been updated since around 14 of March, and obviously the situation is not the same. There is a confinement de-escalation process, with 4 phases (0-3, one every 2 weeks unless it goes wrong) which started 2 weeks ago. There are central government sites with much accurate information, daily updated, but unfortunately only in Spanish. I'm speaking with officials and other trustable information sources every few days and there are 2 daily press conferences from the government (morning and afternoon) to confirm the progress and actions being taken.

 

If I was the king of the IETF, I'd probably be using two primary sources here:

1. the conference hotel.  They will speak the local language and have very current local information.

2. the sponsor/host.  They also presumably have contacts and specific experience..

 

[Jordi] Actually, both myself and the secretariat, are talking with the hotel responsible contacts, and among us (secretariat, Ericsson as host/sponsor and myself), so this is granted. Maybe we missed to explicitly include that in the criterion. Further to that, the main ministry related to Internet, including the people that participate in events like ICANN from the Spanish government, is in the building *right next* to the hotel, and you can guess that I’m speaking with them. They are not just “regular officials”, but Ministry Directors, so high level folks.

 

The argument that "English language information sites may fail to be updated in a timely manner" is definitely a legit complaint and I agree with Jordi here that saying "if this site indicates that any form of local emergency conditions still prevail" is a bad standard to use if it does not provide current data.

 

In the degenerate case that this site was abandoned but left up, it would be impossible to ever hold a meeting in Madrid, as this site would continue to say it's unsafe.  To the extent that this isn't the canonical primary Government source, I would favour going with the more authoritative version.

 

Having said that, I trust Jay and those assessing risk to make the right call if everything else says "go ahead" (including local contacts and Spanish language official sources) and this site is still last updated March 14 and still saying not to go ahead.

 

[Jordi] As indicated before, not advocating now to hold/not-to-hold the meeting but it seems illogic to me that we trust that site when it is clear, that the situation is *very different*, and we are able to meet by next Monday, even in restaurants with the only restriction of 50% of the restaurant capacity (phase 1), and every 2 weeks jump to the new phase (only 2 and 3 left), which means that by end of May we will be back to the “new normal”. For example, if you trust Johns Hopkins University, I can tell you that the information in https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases, matches the situation very well.

 

[Jordi] The point here, and not just for our meeting in Madrid is “what is the new normal” for the entire world? I mean is not just about local situation, but (as already contemplated by the criterion) what are the traveling and meeting restrictions?

 

 

    *  (paraphrasing multiple people) “drop the US CDC because it is unreliable and/or political”..  

    =>  The US CDC is what is referenced in our contracts and we have not identified a better alternative.

 

[Jordi] Having it in contracts means "nothing" if is biased, as it has been proved. It will be interesting to review several countries that have already started to go the "new normal" to see if the website has been updated on time, or it takes several days or weeks.. I understand that it is one of the information sources, but should not be the only one specially if there is contradictory trustable information.

 

"if there is contradictory trustable information" -- I think you hit the nail on the head there.  There needs to be a reliable metric for determining which contradictory information is trustable.  I note that you didn't propose an alternative actionable source here, and Jay made it clear that the IETF has also not identified an alternative which is more trustable than the US CDC.  Everyone is unreliable/political to a greater or lesser extent.

 

I think I see a good point Jordi is making which I paraphrase as: "use this source, but apply your own bullshit filter".

 

However, "all of our contracts have a force majeure clause that specifically lists the US CDC." is a really strong point in favour of keeping the CDC as a key input, since practicality does matter.

 

[Jordi] I guess we are missing the relevance of why the contracts mention that here and I think it will be important to make it public, not just because it is relevant for this Covid-19, but because *maybe* we as a community need to decide if that’s important to keep in contracts. Why an US organization source? (or only an US source)? Can we please explain that, probably in another thread? I don’t think there is anything secret that we can’t discuss openly about those specific parts of the contracts.

 

    *  Feedback to refer to US CDC travel advisory “at level 2 or below" rather than “below level 3”.  

    =>  The nature of level 3 (avoid unnecessary travel) is why it is a disqualifier and if this change is made then that explanation is hidden.

 

I mean, "below level 3" and "at or below level 2" are mathematically identical anyway unless there's a level between 2 and 3.  Sheesh.  Bikeshedders gonna bikeshed.

 

Bron.

 

--

  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd

  brong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.