Re: IETF in July

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

It all depends on how smart are our governments. If they seriously confine the people, we will get to normal earlier. The economic impact will be much lower for all. If a country decides to ignore that, then is fine to avoid travelers from that country.

 

I’m not saying that until there is an efficient vaccine, we will get 0 impact with more Covid19 infections, but not at the level that we congest our health systems and disallow traveling. Doing that more than a couple of months will be really bad for every economy, supply chains and that means citizens. We can’t (and must not) stop the world.

 

We must get to normal as fast as we can, and the only way is confinement. I was not believing on that originally, but now it is clear to me.

 

Spanish government did it really bad in the first moment. They brought a few Spanish citizens from China and quarantined them for 2 weeks, but after that, knowing the level of spread in Italy, didn't took *any* measures (testing, quarantine) to people coming from there, and even worst, 5 days before declaring the “alarm state” (which forced the confinement), they allowed about 70 massive events most of them in the Madrid area, despite the warnings from experts. This was our biological bomb.

 

Despite that, I still think we are talking about this too early. I think we need to wait until around May-June. I hear in the TV news that the Olympics are also doing the same, waiting before taking a decision. They have two major disadvantages vs us: how big is the event (logistics, number of people involved and cost!) and the major one: in some country’s athletes, can’t train as part of the confinement restrictions. And, of course … 3-4 big countries already announce they will boycott it simply not attending.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 23/3/20 16:11, "ietf en nombre de Stewart Bryant" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx en nombre de stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> escribió:

 

On 23 Mar 2020, at 14:26, Victor Kuarsingh <victor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

 

 

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 10:12 Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 3/23/2020 1:28 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> Actually, I’m more and more convinced that we can make it without the need of canceling.
> For those who didn’t see yet that the light at the end of the tunnel is the light of an oncoming train:
>
> The impending postponement of the Olympics (which would have been starting the same week) should lay these thoughts to a final rest.


More to the point: what might plausibly change in the next four months
that would reduce the need to restrict movement?

 

Likely not much.  As much as I want to be optimistic, I suspect the reality will be that the current situation will continue for much longer then we had hoped for and even if the primary issues resolve, there will be lingering impacts from the sudden ramp down of the services industry and commercial air travel..

 

I also think that many supporting businesses will restrict their employees from travel based on health and safety policies. 

 

It’s up to leadership  on timing related to a decision on forgoing an in-person meeting for IETF108, but I think preparing for a remote meeting is the prudent thing to do at this point.  Worst case, we would then have a play book on how to do this in the future.  

 

Regards,

 

Victor K

I agree, H & S, plus the damage to the economy plus the time taken to spin things up again makes it seem unlikely that we will be meeting in Madrid in person. I am not at all convinced about Bangkok given the expectation of an autumn bounce.

 

We really do need to work on the assumption that for some time we will be having full scale virtual meetings, and I think they need to be a much closer mirror of a traditional meeting than the mini-meeting we are having this time.

 

- Stewart

 

 

**********************************************
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.