G’day Mark
The info I quoted came from
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories.html/
You mentioned Australia. Australia is a Level 3 country according to State Dept. Although Australia is relatively safe (CDC Level 1), it is rated Level 3 by the State Dept because it is very difficult
for US citizens to get permission to visit Australia. In that sense, the State Dept ratings are both rx and tx.
Andrew
From: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 April 2021 12:07 AM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles) <amyles@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-CAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-CAC] [STDS-802-11] Results of poll related to 2021 September member input
Hello,
I'm not familiar with levels 1-4 (the UK will shortly produce its
own list, based on traffic light colours). Is this
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/map-and-travel-notices.html ?
That doesn't seem to match Andy's list below (e.g. Cambodia is missing,
and of course there's the level 1 countries like Australia and China).
However, it seems to me that you have to consider rx as well as tx.
It may well be that level 1/2 countries will not want visitors from
level 3/4 countries (e.g. my understanding is that Australia will
not be accepting visitors for the foreseeable future, except very
specific ones, e.g. visitors from New Zealand).
I would agree that the key decision is how much notice would be given.
I would point out that the amount of notice depends on both the tx and
the rx, e.g. for me a meeting in Europe potentially needs less notice
than one in the USA.
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601
ROYAUME UNI WWW:
http://www.samsung.com/uk
From: *** IEEE stds-802-11-cac List *** <STDS-802-11-CAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Andrew Myles (amyles)
Sent: Tuesday, 27 April 2021 01:30
To: STDS-802-11-CAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-CAC] [STDS-802-11] Results of poll related to 2021 September member input
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Chairs' Advisory Committee Reflector ---
G’day Mark
I agree we have a problem in that we do not know what the travel advisories will say in the future. This makes it very difficult to plan future meetings, given the need to make commitments well
ahead of the actual meeting. However, IMHO, we should never expose our members’ health and safety to our (mostly uninformed) guesses.
I have no issue in continuing to plan a meeting based on a guess about what future travel advisories might say. However, the F2F meeting needs to be cancelled if that guess turns out to be incorrect
at the point we need to make a go/no go decision for contractual or practical reasons.
Andrew
From:
mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 April 2021 10:16 AM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles) <amyles@xxxxxxxxx>;
STDS-802-11-CAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-CAC] [STDS-802-11] Results of poll related to 2021 September member input
Andrew,
In my opinion, what we are asking is for the membership to “guess” whether what you describe below will still be the conditions as of September. Sure, many countries are “reconsider/do not travel” right now, and I would
agree with you that it is unreasonable to expect our members to travel under those conditions. But, will that still be the case in September? I don’t know how any of us can make such a guess.
So, I think the question we really are facing is how much advance notice do we have to have, to make travel reasonable/practical for members, once we have reached some point at which we can “guess” with a high degree
of confidence. If we wait until June to make this decision, is that still okay in terms of planning/arranging travel? 3 months seems like enough, to me, but I don’t have the challenges that I know some others do in arranging travel. But, I could well imagine
that by June things will have changed/will be clearly changing, such that our “guess” will be more accurate.
Mark
From: *** IEEE stds-802-11-cac List *** <STDS-802-11-CAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Andrew Myles (amyles)
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 6:10 PM
To: STDS-802-11-CAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-CAC] [STDS-802-11] Results of poll related to 2021 September member input
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Chairs' Advisory Committee Reflector ---
G’day all
The results below are relatively clear that a Sept F2F meeting is not viable/reasonable. However, it does highlight the question of what is our criteria for restarting F2F meetings?
Given we are an international SDO, my view is that we should take into account the accessibility of F2F locations to our members internationally.
One way of doing this is to consider government travel advisories. Using the USG as an example, most of the world is rated as:
- Level 3: Reconsider Travel
- Level 4: Do Not Travel
Many/most countries currently rate the US as Level 3 or Level 4 too. It is not reasonable to ask our members to visit countries contrary to government advice. Members in many of these countries are practically not allowed to visit the US
and other countries, both by rules in their home country and the destination country.
There are a bunch of Level 2 countries based on the USG rating (some surprising), including a few that IEEE 802.11 WG has visited before (bolded):
- Belize
- Benin
- Grenada
- Palau
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Singapore
- South Korea
- Thailand
- Vietnam
- Liberia
- Mauritania
- Montserrat
- Rwanda
- Sri Lanka
- Zimbabwe
- Bhutan
Maybe we should restrict any future surveys to destinations that are rated by most governments as Level 1 or Level 2?
Andrew
From: Dorothy Stanley <dstanley1389@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 April 2021 4:05 AM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11] Results of poll related to 2021 September member input
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
All,
The results of the recent poll are below. These results are input to the Wireless Chairs standing committee decision re: in person or electronic upcoming September meeting.
2021 September Member Input:
Q1: Y/N 67/108, where Yes = I can attend in person, No - I cannot attend in person
Q2: Y/N 59/116, where Yes - I CANNOT pay the fee, No= I CAN pay the fee
The questions are in
https://www.ieee802.org/11/email/stds-802-11/msg05318.html .
Thanks very much,
Dorothy
----------------------
Dorothy Stanley
IEEE 802.11 WG Chair, dstanley@xxxxxxxx
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
dorothy.stanley@xxxxxxx
dstanley1389@xxxxxxxxx
+1 630-363-1389
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-CAC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-CAC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-CAC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-CAC&A=1
|
|
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-CAC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-CAC&A=1