> On 21 Sep 2021, at 03:43, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 9/20/2021 12:33 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote: >> I do not mind where it is, just that I think it should be someplace that has not had a 17month blanket travel band and no sign of lifting it. >> >> Canada would be fine. > Stuart - here's the reality. For most (all?) locations, there will be restrictions. Canada for example, has a limited list of approved vaccines (https://travel.gc.ca/travel-covid/travel-restrictions/foreign-sept7-vaccine). Sinovac is not on that list. E.g. most PRC citizens would not be admitted to China at this time. > > There's a nifty wizard that Canada provides (https://travel.gc.ca/travel-covid/travel-restrictions/wizard-start) that can tell give you an indication of whether you might be admitted or not. > > Other locations allow you to come in if vaccinated, but if your country is not on their "green" list, you may have as much as a 14 day quarantine before you can move about freely. > > Going back to what Joel said, things will change between now and when we're supposed to be in the US for an IETF. I would be surprised if anyone has a clue at this point as to the final direction of the change by the time we have to decide. > > Later, Mike In addition to that everyone needs a pre-approved plan for how you will quarantine for 14 days if you happen to test positive / be symptomatic on arrival. That plan has to include how you will get yourself from the airport to where you are staying. So you need a hotel that will do room service to a COVID-19 positive person. "You must be prepared to quarantine for 14 days, even if you are fully vaccinated, in case you: • are symptomatic • don’t meet the requirements for the fully vaccinated traveller exemption A suitable quarantine plan, which includes a place you will quarantine, must be entered into ArriveCAN in case you don’t qualify for the exemption. You may be asked to explain your quarantine plan at the border.” https://travel.gc.ca/travel-covid/travel-restrictions/covid-vaccinated-travellers-entering-canada#vaccinated Travel is difficult to anywhere at this point in time. Mark >> - Stewart >> >>> On 20 Sep 2021, at 17:23, Clint Chaplin <clint.chaplin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> And Canada also has a system to register conferences such that attendees get different treatment upon entry to the country. >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 8:10 AM STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > Agree with Phillip, but I would add one more thing. Stewart's >>> > note includes "country that is open to International >>> > participation in technical standards meetings". I'd would be >>> > happy --or at least amused-- to see a counterexample, but, >>> > AFAICT, the number of countries who have imposed travel >>> > restrictions -- regardless of when, for how long, and with >>> > various details-- but have said "except for technical standards >>> > meetings, whose attendees are exempt from the rules" is zero. >>> >>> Actually, for the upcoming Broadband World Forum in Amsterdam in October it's possible for attendees to get an exemption from the quarantine requirement (which is the most onerous part of a travel restriction -- vaccines and tests are less onerous except for people from places where vaccines and tests are difficult to come by). BBWF isn't a "technical standards meeting"; but the exemption is possible to request for all business-related conferences which I would expect might include "technical standards meetings". >>> Barbara >>> >>> > I think Brian Carpenter's note of some weeks ago is key. >>> > Restating it from a different perspective. Until either a very >>> > large fraction of the worldwide population has been vaccinated >>> > with a vaccine that is highly effective in preventing infection >>> > and transmission and not just against serious illness, >>> > hospitalization, and death (likely many years at the rate things >>> > are going) or almost all of those who have not developed nature >>> > immunity have died off (likely even longer), we are going to >>> > have countries with significant exit or reentry restrictions and >>> > companies with travel restrictions of their own. Maybe >>> > predictability will improve to the point that we get months of >>> > notice about who is going to impose (or drop) which restrictions >>> > and when rather than the "little or no notice" Phillip mentions, >>> > but the odds of getting enough notice to plan meetings well are >>> > about zero. >>> > >>> > Net result: Unless we really want to have never ending >>> > discussions about how one country or company is more protective, >>> > infected, or reasonable than another (and likely to remain so >>> > some months or years off) or about which groups of participants >>> > are more important than others, it seems to me that there are >>> > only three realistic questions: >>> > >>> > (1) Do we plan on all-remote meetings for the indefinite future >>> > or is it possible, operationally and economically, to plan >>> > "hybrid" meetings with significant numbers of people remote, >>> > meetings whose physical locations can be cancelled or moved on >>> > relatively short notice? As others have pointed out, big parts >>> > of the latter question are financial and I hope the LLC (really >>> > Jay) will tell us rather than having those of us who are not >>> > expert and who do not have access to key data debate the topics >>> > at length. >>> > >>> > (2) Would there be significant enough value in cluster meetings >>> > that are f2f on a national or regional level with the clusters >>> > participating remotely in global IETF meetings to justify >>> > sorting out the many challenges -- technical, logistical, and >>> > financial -- associated with such arrangements (and noting that >>> > some countries and companies have imposed in-country travel >>> > restrictions, not just international ones)? >>> > >>> > (3) Do we really need to have these discussions on a per-meeting >>> > basis or can we consider the time they take away from >>> > substantive technical work that might make the Internet better? >>> > Can we cut the frequency down and increase our overall technical >>> > productivity? And, if the answers are "less often would be >>> > fine", can we determine the frequency (or delegate that >>> > determination) and then start treating any threads that bring >>> > the issues up on the interim without introducing new and >>> > significant information and circumstances as disruptive? >>> > >>> > thanks, >>> > john >>> > >>> > >>> > --On Monday, September 20, 2021 08:55 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker >>> > <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > >>> > > I don't think there is any value to be had in the game of >>> > > guessing which country will be more or less open to visitors >>> > > in nine months time. >>> > > >>> > > Any country can shut down with little or no notice. And it is >>> > > not just stopping people in that is the issue, it is people >>> > > unable to get back home. There are still people who have been >>> > > unable to get home from the 2020 lockdowns. >>> > > >>> > > US regulations have much wider impact than the US. Corporate >>> > > travel restrictions tend to be at least as restrictive as the >>> > > US. It is highly unlikely that we can have a productive >>> > > meeting anywhere on the planet while US travel restrictions >>> > > are in place. >>> > > >>> > > The people of a certain ideological faith spend a lot of time >>> > > jabbering enthusiastically about 'regulatory arbitrage'. In >>> > > practice, regulation tends to spread far beyond the sovereign >>> > > territory it theoretically applies to. The device you are >>> > > reading this on is almost certainly RoHS certified (or >>> > > pretends to be) despite the fact that this is only a legal >>> > > requirement in the EU. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 1:16 AM Stewart Bryant >>> > > <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> I know that it is a long way out, but there seems to be a >>> > >> significant body of opinion that the US will not open up to >>> > >> travel by the residents of a significant number of IETF >>> > >> participants until the end of 2022. >>> > >> >>> > >> Under these circumstances should we not be moving IETF 114 >>> > >> from the USA to a country that is open to International >>> > >> participation in technical standards meetings? >>> > >> >>> > >> Moving a meeting is no small undertaking, and the sooner we >>> > >> take steps to move to a less restrictive country, the higher >>> > >> the chance that we will have a face to face rather than >>> > >> virtual meeting. >>> > >> >>> > >> - Stewart >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Clint Chaplin >>> Senior Principal Standards Engineer >>> Samsung Research America >> > > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx
