I have been traveling over the last couple of months. On all flights - Abbot’ self test - BinoxNow ($25US @Walgreens) has been accepted, it takes 35 min and Internet connection to do the test. Cheers, Jeff > On Oct 5, 2021, at 09:14, Stephan Wenger <stewe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I have flown to Europe and back to the US three times since this spring. The only empty plane I encountered was on the very first flight, in April 2021 during the peak of the European "third wave", when the 787-8 was only 1/3rd full. Since then, the 777-300 or 747-8 were packed. > S. > > On 10/5/21, 07:04, "ietf on behalf of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of db3546@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Loa, > > The new guidelines are expected to be announced "early November". Currently US can go out - but all returning US travelers - even vaccinated - need to be tested. The uncertainty of test sites, fees, false positives, break through cases, trip delays/reroutes making one's test not accepted, and paying big bucks to stay in quarantine "hotels", are keeping the planes empty. > > Everyone is waiting, waiting, waiting, > Deborah > > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant > Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 9:15 AM > To: loa Andersson <loa@xxxxx> > Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>; Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; IETF <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: IETF 114 in the USA > > Loa > > According to the (London) Times this morning, there are a lot of complaints from the airline industry that although it was announced that travel restrictions would lift in November no firm date has yet been published by the White House. > > So until we have a White House announcement EU & UK citizens are still banned from travelling to the US. > > - Stewart > >> On 5 Oct 2021, at 10:04, 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 > >
