IAOC                                                       F. Baker, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Best Current Practice                    August 2, 2016
Expires: February 3, 2017

              IAOC Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process


   This documents the IAOC's IETF Meeting Venue Selection Process from
   the perspective of its goals and thought processes.  It points to
   additional process documents on the IAOC Web Site that go into
   further detail and are subject to change with experience.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 3, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Baker                   Expires February 3, 2017                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                                               August 2016

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Meeting Selection Participants and Responsibilities . . . . .   3
     2.1.  The IETF Community  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  IESG and IETF Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  The Internet Society  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.4.  IETF Administrative Oversight Committee . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.5.  IETF Administrative Support Activity  . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.6.  IETF Administrative Director  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.7.  IAOC Meeting Committee  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Venue Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Venue Selection Principles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Venue Selection Objectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Venue Selection Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.3.1.  Venue City Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.3.2.  Basic Venue Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.3.3.  Technical Services and Operations Criteria  . . . . .  10
       3.3.4.  Lodging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.3.5.  Food and Beverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.4.  Non-criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.5.  Venue Selection Phases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.6.  Experience Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   4.  Transparency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   This document describes the IETF Meeting Venue Selection Process from
   the perspective of goals and thought processes.  Following IETF 94
   and at IETF 95 there was a discussion on the IETF list of the
   selection process and criteria for IETF meetings.  In response to
   that discussion, the IAOC and the IAOC Meetings Committee took it
   upon themselves to more publicly document its process and involve
   community input.

   This document describes the objectives and principles behind the
   venue selection process.  It also discusses the actual selection

Baker                   Expires February 3, 2017                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                                               August 2016

   process to one level of detail, and points to working documents used
   in execution.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   Requirements called out in this document are identified as either
   "mandatory" or "desired", and considerations are tagged as
   "Important" or "Would be nice".  For clarity, the terms are defined

   Mandatory:  If this requirement cannot be met, a location under
      consideration is unacceptable.  We walk away.

   Desired:  We would very much like to meet this requirement, but have
      frequently been unable to.  The fact that we could not meet it is
      considered in comparison to other sites.

   Important:  Can be a make-or-break consideration, but can also be
      traded off against other considerations.

   Would be nice:  Not make-or-break, but warrants additional
      consideration if found to be true.

2.  Meeting Selection Participants and Responsibilities

   The formal structure of IETF administrative support functions is
   documented in BCP 101 [RFC4071][RFC4371][RFC7691].  The reader is
   expected to be familiar with the entities and roles defined by that
   document, in particular for the IASA, ISOC, IAOC and IAD.  This
   section covers the meeting selection related roles of these and other
   parties that participate in the process.  Note that roles beyond
   meeting selection, e.g., actually running and reporting on meetings,
   are outside the scope of this document.

2.1.  The IETF Community

   While somewhat obvious to most, it is important to note that IETF
   meetings serve all those who contribute to the development of IETF
   RFCs.  This includes those who attend meetings, from newcomer to
   frequent attendee, to those who participate remotely, and to those
   who don't attend but contribute to new RFCs.  Potential new
   contributors are also considered in the process.

   IETF consensus with respect to the meeting venue selection process is
   judged via standard IETF process and not by any other means, e.g.,
   surveys.  Surveys are used to gather information related to meeting
   venues, but not to measure consensus.

Baker                   Expires February 3, 2017                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                                               August 2016

2.2.  IESG and IETF Chair

   The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is a group comprised
   of the IETF Area Directors and the IETF Chair.  The IESG is
   responsible for the management, along with the IAB, of the IETF, and
   is the standards approval board for the IETF, as described in BCP9
   [RFC2026].  This means that the IESG sets high level policies related
   to, among other things, meeting venues.  The IETF Chair is a member
   of the IESG who, among other things, relays policies to the IAOC.
   The IETF Chair is also a member of the IAOC.

2.3.  The Internet Society

   The Internet Society (ISOC) executes all venue contracts on behalf of
   the IETF at the request of the IAOC; solicits meeting sponsorships;
   collects all meeting-related revenues, including registration fees,
   sponsorships, hotel commissions, and other miscellaneous revenues.
   ISOC also provides accounting services, such as invoicing and monthly
   financial statements.  The meetings budget is managed by the IAD.

2.4.  IETF Administrative Oversight Committee

   The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has the
   responsibility to oversee and select IETF meeting venues.  It
   instructs the IAD to work with the Internet Society to write the
   relevant contracts.  It approves the IETF meetings calendar.

2.5.  IETF Administrative Support Activity

   The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) supports the meeting
   selection process.  This includes identifying, qualifying and
   reporting on potential meeting sites, as well as supporting meeting
   venue contract negotiation.  The IETF Secretariat is part of the IASA
   under the management of the IAD.

2.6.  IETF Administrative Director

   The IETF Administrative Director (IAD) coordinates and supports the
   activities of the IETF Secretariat, the IAOC Meetings Committee and
   the IAOC to ensure the timely execution of the meeting process.  This
   includes participating in the IAOC Meeting Subcommittee and ensuring
   its efforts are documented, leading venue contract negotiation, and
   coordinating contract execution with ISOC.

Baker                   Expires February 3, 2017                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                                               August 2016

2.7.  IAOC Meeting Committee

   The IAOC Meeting Committee is generally referred to as the Meetings

   The fundamental purpose of the committee is to participate in the
   venue selection process, and to formulate recommendations to the IAOC
   regarding meeting sites.  It also tracks the meetings sponsorship
   program, recommends extraordinary meeting-related expenses, and
   recommends the IETF meetings calendar to the IAOC.  The charter of
   the committee is located here: https://iaoc.ietf.org/

   Membership in the Meetings Committee is at the discretion of the
   IAOC; it includes an IAOC appointed chair, the IETF Administrative
   Director (IAD), IAOC members, representatives from the Secretariat,
   and interested members of the community.

3.  Venue Selection Process

   The process of selecting a venue is described below and is based on

3.1.  Venue Selection Principles

   The IETF, and therefore the IAOC and its Meetings Committee, have
   some core values that pervade the selection process.  These are not
   limited to the following, but at minimum include them.

   Who are we?
      We are computer scientists, engineers, network operators,
      academics, and other interested parties sharing the goal of making
      the Internet work better.  At this time, the vast majority of
      attendees come from North America, Western and Central Europe, and
      Eastern Asia.  We also have participants from other regions.

   Why do we meet?
      We meet to advance Internet standards development, to advance
      Internet Drafts and RFCs.  We meet to facilitate attendee
      participation in multiple topics and to enable cross-pollination
      of ideas and technology.

   Where do we meet?
      We meet in different locations globally in order to spread the
      pain and cost of travel among active participants, balancing
      travel time and expense across the regions from where IETF
      participants are based.  We also aim to enhance inclusiveness and
      new contributions.

Baker                   Expires February 3, 2017                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                                               August 2016

      We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote participation of
      anyone who wants to be involved.  Every country has limits on who
      it will permit within its borders.  This principle of
      inclusiveness militates against the selection of venues within
      countries that impose visa regulations and/or laws that
      effectively exclude people on the basis of race, religion, gender,
      sexual orientation, or national origin, and to a lesser extent,
      reduces the likelihood of selecting countries that use such
      attributes to make entry difficult.

   Internet Access:
      As an organization, we write specifications for the Internet, and
      we use it heavily.  Meeting attendees need unfiltered access to
      the general Internet and our corporate networks, which are usually
      reached using encrypted VPNs from the meeting venue and hotels,
      including overflow hotels.  We also need open network access
      available at high enough data rates to support our work, including
      the support of remote participation.

      We meet to have focused technical discussions.  These are not
      limited to breakout sessions, although of course those are
      important; they also happen over meals or drinks (including a
      specific type of non-session that we call a "Bar BOF"), or in side
      meetings.  Environments that are noisy or distracting prevent that
      or reduce its effectiveness, and are therefore less desirable as a
      meeting venue.

      Meeting attendees participate as individuals.  While many have
      their participation underwritten by employers or sponsors, there
      are many who do not.  Locations that do not provide convenient
      budget alternatives for food and lodging, or which are multiple
      travel segments from major airports, are therefore exclusionary,
      and violate our value of "Inclusiveness".  Within reason, budget
      should not be a barrier to accommodation.

   Political considerations:
      The IETF does not make political statements.  We do not decide who
      is or is not a country, and we do not choose or not choose venues
      based on political criteria.

3.2.  Venue Selection Objectives

   Venues for meetings are selected to advance the objectives of the
   IETF, which are discussed in https://www.ietf.org/about/mission.html.
   The IAOC's supporting objectives include:

Baker                   Expires February 3, 2017                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                                               August 2016

   o  Advancing standards development

   o  Facilitating participation by active contributors

   o  Sharing the travel pain; balancing travel time and expense across
      the regions from where IETF participants are based.

   o  Encouraging new contributors

   o  Generating funds to support IETF operations in support of
      standards development, including the Secretariat, IASA, and the
      RFC Editor.

   There is an explicit intent to rotate meeting locations equally among
   several places in accordance with IETF policy.  However, a consistent
   balance is sometimes difficult to achieve.  The IAOC has an objective
   of setting the Regions 4 years in advance, meeting in Europe, North
   America, and Asia, with a possibility of occasionally meeting outside
   those regions.  This policy, known as the 1-1-1* model, is set by the
   IESG, https://iaoc.ietf.org/minutes/2010-11-10-iaoc-minutes.txt, and
   is further discussed in [I-D.krishnan-ietf-meeting-policy].  The
   reason for the multi-year timeframe is maximization of opportunities;
   the smaller the time available to qualify and contract a conference
   venue, the more stress imposed on the qualification process, and the
   greater the risk of not finding a suitable venue or paying more for

   There is no formal policy regarding rotation of regions, the time of
   year for a meeting in a specific region, or whether a meeting in a
   non-targeted region replaces a visit to one of the regions during
   that year.

   The IETF chair drives selection of "*" locations, i.e., venues
   outside the usual regions, and requires community input.  These
   selections usually arise from evidence of growing interest and
   participation in the new region.  Expressions of interest from
   possible hosts also factor into the meeting site selection process,
   for any meeting.

   Increased participation in the IETF from those other regions,
   electronically or in person, could result in basic changes to the
   overall pattern, and we encourage those who would like for that to
   occur to encourage participation from those regions.

Baker                   Expires February 3, 2017                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                                               August 2016

3.3.  Venue Selection Criteria

   A number of criteria are considered during the site selection
   process.  The list following is not sorted in any particular order,
   but includes the committee's major considerations.

   The selection of a venue always requires trade-offs.  There are no
   perfect venues.  For example, a site may not have a single hotel that
   can accommodate a significant number of the attendees of a typical
   IETF.  That doesn't disqualify it, but it may reduce its desirability
   in the presence of an alternative that does.

   Each identified criterion is labeled with the terms defined above in
   Section 1.1, i.e., "Mandatory", "Desired", "Important" or "Would be
   nice".  These terms guide the trade-off analysis portion of the
   selection process.  All "Mandatory" labeled criteria must be met for
   a venue to be selected.  The remaining terms may be viewed as
   weighting factors.

   There are times where the evaluation of the criteria will be
   subjective.  This is even the case for criteria labeled as
   "Mandatory".  For this reason, the Meetings Committee will
   specifically review, and affirm to its satisfaction, that all
   "Mandatory" labeled criteria are satisfied by a particular venue and
   main IETF hotel as part of the process defined below in Section 3.5.

3.3.1.  Venue City Considerations

   o  Travel to the venue is reasonably acceptable based on cost, time,
      and burden for participants traveling from multiple regions.  It
      is anticipated that the burden borne will be generally shared over
      the course of the year.  [Important]

   o  Travel barriers to entry, e.g., visa requirements that can limit
      participation, are researched, noted, and carefully considered.

   o  Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this venue are
      researched, reviewed and carefully considered, at the time the
      selection is made, and thereafter as the time for the meeting
      approaches.  [Important]

   o  Review available travel information (such as
      https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country.html) for
      issues that would be counter to our principles on inclusiveness
      etc.  [Important]

Baker                   Expires February 3, 2017                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                                               August 2016

   o  The venue is assessed as favorable for obtaining a host and
      sponsors.  That is, the Meeting is in a location and at a price
      that it is possible and probable to find a host and sponsors.

   o  Prior successful IETF experience with the Venue and Venue city
      will be considered as a positive factor when deciding among
      multiple venues.  [Would be nice]

   o  Consideration will be given to whether it makes sense to enter
      into a multi-event contract with the venue to optimize meeting and
      attendee benefits, i.e., reduce administrative costs and reduce
      direct attendee costs.  [Would be nice]

3.3.2.  Basic Venue Criteria

   o  The Meeting Space is adequate in size and layout to accommodate
      the meeting and foster participant interaction.  [Mandatory]

   o  The venue and hotels can be put under contract.  The subsequent
      failure to put a selected venue under contract will result in a
      re-evaluation of the venues and selection for the meeting.

   o  The cost of guest rooms, meeting space, meeting food and beverage
      is affordable (within the norms of business travel).  [Mandatory]

   o  The economics of the venue allow the meeting to be net cash
      positive [Mandatory].

   o  An Optimal Facility for an IETF meeting is held under "One Roof",
      that is, qualified meeting space and guest rooms are available in
      the same facility.  [Desired]

   o  An Optimal Facility for an IETF meeting is accessible by people
      with disabilities.

      *  The selected facility conforms with local accessibility laws
         and regulations [Mandatory]

      *  http://www.sigaccess.org/welcome-to-sigaccess/resources/
         accessible-conference-guide/ provides a definition of related
         considerations that shall be used in evaluating this criterion.

Baker                   Expires February 3, 2017                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                                               August 2016

3.3.3.  Technical Services and Operations Criteria

   o  The Venue's support technologies and services -- network, audio-
      video, etc., are sufficient for the anticipated activities at the
      meeting, or the venue is willing to add such infrastructure at no
      or at an acceptable cost to the IETF.  [Mandatory]

   o  The meeting venue must permit and facilitate the delivery of a
      high performance, robust, unfiltered and unmodified IETF Network.

   o  The IETF hotel(s), which are one or more hotels in close proximity
      to the venue where the primary IETF room allocations are
      negotiated and the IETF SSIDs are in use, must provide, or permit
      and facilitate, the delivery of a high performance, robust,
      unfiltered and unmodified Internet service for the public areas
      and guest rooms.  This service is typically included in the cost
      of the room.  [Mandatory]

   o  The overflow hotels should provide reasonable, reliable,
      unfiltered Internet service for the public areas and guest rooms.
      This service is typically included in the cost of the room.

3.3.4.  Lodging

   o  The IETF hotel(s) are within close proximity to each other and the
      venue.  [Mandatory]

   o  The Guest Rooms at the IETF hotel(s) are sufficient in number to
      house 1/3 or more of projected meeting attendees.  [Mandatory]

   o  The Venue environs include budget hotels within convenient travel
      time, cost, and effort.  [Mandatory]

   o  Overflow Hotels that can be placed under contract.  They typically
      must be within convenient travel time of the venue and have a
      variety of guest room rates.  [Mandatory]

   o  The IETF hotel(s) are accessible by people with disabilities.

      *  The selected facility conforms with local accessibility laws
         and regulations [Mandatory]

      *  http://www.sigaccess.org/welcome-to-sigaccess/resources/
         accessible-conference-guide/ provides a definition of related
         considerations that shall be used in evaluating this criterion.

Baker                   Expires February 3, 2017               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                                               August 2016

3.3.5.  Food and Beverage

   o  The Venue environs, which includes onsite, and the areas within a
      reasonable walking distance, or conveniently accessible by a short
      taxi, bus, or subway ride, has convenient and inexpensive choices
      for meals that can accommodate a wide range of dietary
      requirements.  [Mandatory]

   o  The Venue environs include grocery shopping that will accommodate
      a wide range of dietary requirements, within a reasonable walking
      distance, or conveniently accessible by a short taxi, bus, or
      subway ride.  [Desired]

3.4.  Non-criteria

   The following is specifically not among the selection criteria:

   o  Visiting new locations for the sake of variety in meeting

3.5.  Venue Selection Phases

   Commencing the process four years in advance of an event results in
   the following schedule as a guideline:

   Phase 1:  Identification and Preliminary Investigation
      Four years out, a process identifies cities for meetings and
      initiates site selection.

      A.  The IAOC selects regions for meetings.

      B.  Meeting target cities per region are provided to the
          Secretariat based upon Meetings Committee input and, if known,
          host preferences.

      C.  Potential venues in preferred cities identified and
          investigated, including reviews of Official Advisory Sources,
          consultation with specialty travel services, frequent
          travelers and local contacts to identify possible barriers to
          holding a successful meeting in the target cities.

      D.  Investigated cities and findings are provided by the
          Secretariat to the Meetings Committee for review.  Meetings
          Committee makes a recommendation to the IAOC of investigated/
          target cities to consider further as well as issues identified
          and the results of research conducted.

   Phase 2:  Community Consultation

Baker                   Expires February 3, 2017               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                                               August 2016

      The IAOC asks the community whether there are any barriers to
      holding a successful meeting in the target cities.  Community
      responses are reviewed and concerns investigated.  IAOC provides a
      list of vetted cities to the Meetings Committee to pursue as
      potential meeting locations.

   Phase 3:  Vetted Venues Evaluated for Site Qualification Visit

      A.  Secretariat Assesses "vetted" target cities to determine
          availability and conformance to criteria

      B.  Meetings Committee approves potential cities for site
          qualification visit.

      C.  Site qualification visits are arranged by Secretariat and
          preliminary negotiations are undertaken with selected
          potential sites

      D.  Site qualification visit is conducted using the checklist from
          The site visit team prepares a site report and discusses it
          with the Meetings Committee.

   Phase 4:  Qualified Venues Evaluated for Contract
      2.75 - 3 years out, initiate contract negotiations.

      A.  The Meetings Committee reviews the venue options based on
          venue selection criteria and recommends a venue to the IAOC.
          Only options that meet all Mandatory labeled criteria may be

      B.  IAOC selects a venue for contracting as well as a back-up
          contracting venue, if available.

      C.  Secretariat negotiates with selected venue.  IAD reviews
          contract and requests IAOC and ISOC approval of contract and
          authority for Secretariat to execute contract on ISOC's

      D.  Contracts are executed.

   Phase 5:  Evaluation and Contingency Planning
      3 Months Prior to the Meeting, the meeting site is checked for
      continued availability and conformance to expectations.

      A.  Secretariat reviews current status of the contracted meeting
          location to confirm there is no change in the location status
          and to identify possible new barriers to holding a successful

Baker                   Expires February 3, 2017               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                                               August 2016

          meeting in the contracted city and provides findings to the

      B.  IAOC considers the information provided and evaluates the risk
          - if significant risk is identified, the Contingency Planning
          Flow Chart (https://iaoc.ietf.org/meetings-committee/venue-
          selection.html) is followed, if current risk is not
          significant, the situation is monitored through the meeting to
          ensure there is no significant change.

3.6.  Experience Notes

   a.  The foregoing process works with reasonable certainty in North
       America and Europe.

   b.  Experience to date for Asia and Latin America is that contracts
       take longer and often will not be executed more than two years in
       advance of the meeting.  While the IETF will have the first
       option for the dates, for reasons not completely understood
       contracts won't be executed.

4.  Transparency

   BCP 101 requires transparency in IASA process and contracts, and
   thereby of the meetings committee.  BCP 101 also states that the IAOC
   approves what information is to remain confidential.  Therefore any
   information produced by the meetings committee or related to meetings
   that individuals believe is confidential, e.g., venue contracts, must
   be confirmed to be confidential by the IAOC.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This memo asks the IANA for no new parameters.

6.  Security Considerations

   This note proposes no protocols, and therefore no new protocol

7.  Privacy Considerations

   This note reveals no personally identifying information apart from
   its authorship.

Baker                   Expires February 3, 2017               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                                               August 2016

8.  Contributors

   In addition to the editor, text was developed by

      Ray Pelletier
      Internet Society
      Email: rpelletier@isoc.org

      Laura Nugent
      Association Management Solutions
      +1 (510) 492-4008
      Email: lnugent@amsl.com

      Dave Crocker
      Brandenburg InternetWorking
      Email: dcrocker@bbiw.net

      Lou Berger
      LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
      Email: lberger@labn.net

      Ole Jacobsen
      The Internet Protocol Journal
      +1 415 550-9433
      Email: olejacobsen@me.com

      Jim Martin
      +1 608 807-0454
      Email: jim@inoc.com

9.  Acknowledgements

   Additional commentary came from Jari Arkko and Scott Bradner.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

              Krishnan, S., "High level guidance for the meeting policy
              of the IETF", draft-krishnan-ietf-meeting-policy-01 (work
              in progress), July 2016.

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,

Baker                   Expires February 3, 2017               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                                               August 2016

   [RFC4071]  Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the
              IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC
              4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005,

   [RFC4371]  Carpenter, B., Ed. and L. Lynch, Ed., "BCP 101 Update for
              IPR Trust", BCP 101, RFC 4371, DOI 10.17487/RFC4371,
              January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4371>.

   [RFC7691]  Bradner, S., Ed., "Updating the Term Dates of IETF
              Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) Members", BCP
              101, RFC 7691, DOI 10.17487/RFC7691, November 2015,

10.2.  Informative References

              Barnes, M., "Healthy Food and Special Dietary Requirements
              for IETF meetings", draft-barnes-healthy-food-07 (work in
              progress), July 2013.

Appendix A.  Change Log

   2016-01-12:  Initial version

   2016-01-21:  Update to reflect https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/
      VenueSelectionCriteriaJan2016.pdf and
      accessed from https://iaoc.ietf.org/private/privatemeetings.html.

   2016-02-23:  Reorganize and capture IAOC Meetings Committee

   2016-03-03:  Final from Design Team.

   2016-03-17:  First update incorporating mtgvenue@ietf.org comments

   2016-05-20  Updated in accordance with editing by Laura Nugent, Dave
      Crocker, Lou Berger, Fred Baker, and others.

Author's Address

   Fred Baker (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   Santa Barbara, California  93117

   Email: fred@cisco.com

Baker                   Expires February 3, 2017               [Page 15]