https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/international-travel-during-covid19.html plus whatever the state/county/city has stated. > On 5 Oct 2021, at 20:04, Loa Andersson <loa@xxxxx> wrote: > > All, > > I'm confused about what really applies for travel to the US just now. > > There were a lot of restrictions posted in late January 2021, including a requirement of 7-days self-quarantive after arriving to the US. > > I can't find, what applies at the moment, and I can't find the the January regulations has been lifted. > > /Loa > > On 20/09/2021 17:09, STARK, BARBARA H 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> > > -- > > Loa Andersson email: loa@xxxxx > Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi.nu@xxxxxxxxx > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx
