mtgvenue R. Pelletier
Internet-Draft Internet Society
Intended status: Best Current Practice L. Nugent
Expires: June 3, 2017 Association Management Solutions
D. Crocker, Ed.
Brandenburg InternetWorking
L. Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
O. Jacobsen
The Internet Protocol Journal
J. Martin
INOC
F. Baker, Ed.
November 30, 2016
IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process
draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-03
Abstract
The IAOC has responsibility for arranging IETF plenary meeting Venue
selection and operation. This document details the IETF's Meeting
Venue Selection Process from the perspective of its goals, criteria
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 June 3, 2017.
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. *** Post-Seoul Revisions *** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Venue Selection Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Core Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Venue Selection Non-Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Venue Selection Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Venue City Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Basic Venue Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Technical Services and Operations Criteria . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Lodging Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. Food and Beverage Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Venue Selection Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. The IETF Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. IESG and IETF Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. The Internet Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4. IETF Administrative Oversight Committee . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5. IETF Administrative Support Activity . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.6. IETF Administrative Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.7. IAOC Meeting Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Venue Selection Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Qualification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4. Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.5. Final Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Text carried forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Venue Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction
The IAOC has responsibility for arranging IETF plenary meeting venue
selection and operation. This document describes the IETF Meeting
Venue Selection Process from the perspective of goals, criteria and
thought processes. It describes the objectives and principles behind
the Venue selection process. It also discusses the actual selection
process to one level of detail, and points to working documents used
in execution.
1.1. Background
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
refine it, based on community input.
1.2. *** Post-Seoul Revisions ***
Comments on this post-Seoul version:
o Many items from the Sullivan draft have been included.
o A number of criteria had confusing wording and have been revised.
The confusion was about the difference between a process that must
be followed, versus a decision based on that process. Following
the process is Mandatory. The details of the decision, however,
are not pre-determined.
o Extensive reformulation of the document layout.
EDITOR'S DISCLAIMER: This attempts to reflect the work of the
Seould mtgvenue discussions but is certain to have missed and/or
misinterpreted quite a bit. Some changes were the result of off-
list discussions; they seem to resolve specific issues but of
course the final decision rests with the working group... Please
post explicit text change requests to the list. /Dave
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
1.3. Requirements Language
Requirements called out in this document are identified by the degree
of requirement. The labels that are used are:
Mandatory:
If this requirement cannot be met, a location under consideration
is unacceptable. We walk away.
Important:
Does not qualify as Mandatory, but is still highly significant;
can possibly be traded off against other Important considerations.
Desired:
We would very much like to meet this requirement, but the failure
to meet it will not disqualify a Venue.
2. Venue Selection Objectives
2.1. Core Values
The IETF has some core values that pervade the selection process.
The values are not limited to the following, but at minimum include
them.
Why do we meet?
We meet to pursue the IETF's mission [RFC3935], partly by
advancing the development of Internet-Drafts and RFCs. We also
seek to facilitate attendee participation in multiple topics and
to enable cross-pollination of ideas and technologies.
Inclusiveness:
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.
However the IETF seeks to:
1. Minimize situations in which onerous entry regulations prevent
participants from attending meetings, or failing that to
distribute meeting locations such that onerous entry
regulations are not always experienced by the same attendees;
and
2. Avoid meeting in countries with laws that effectively exclude
people on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual
orientation, national origin, or gender identity.
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
Where do we meet?
We meet in different locations globally, in order to spread the
difficulty and cost of travel among active participants, balancing
travel time and expense across the regions in which IETF
participants are based.
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, at the meeting Facility, to
support our work, including the support of remote participation.
[MeetingNet]
Focus:
We meet to have focused technical discussions. These are not
limited to scheduled 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.
Economics:
Meeting attendees participate as individuals. While many are
underwritten by employers or sponsors, many are self-funded. In
order to reduce participation costs and travel effort, we
therefore seek locations that provide convenient budget
alternatives for food and lodging, and which minimize travel
segments from major airports to the Venue. Within reason, budget
should not be a barrier to accommodation.
2.2. Venue Selection Non-Objectives
IETF meeting Venues are not selected or declined with the explicit
purposes of:
Politics:
Endorsing or condemning particular countries, political paradigms,
laws, regulations, or policies.
Maximal attendance:
Because the IETF garners a significant portion of its revenue from
IETF meeting fees, there is considerable incentive for decision-
makers to prefer a Venue that will attract more attendees. It is
important to resist this temptation: a larger meeting in which key
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
contributors could not make it is not a better meeting; neither is
one with a lot of "tourists".
Tourism:
Variety in site-seeing experiences.
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 might 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 might reduce its
desirability in the presence of an alternative that does.
Many of the evaluation criteria are subjective. This might even be
the case for criteria labeled as "Mandatory". For this reason, the
IAOC and Meetings Committee will specifically review, and affirm to
their satisfaction, that all "Mandatory" labeled criteria are
satisfied by a particular Venue, as part of the process defined below
in Section 5.
Three terms describe the places for which the IETF contracts
services:
Venue:
This is an umbrella term for the city, meeting resources and guest
room resources.
Facility:
These contain meeting rooms and associated resources, and possibly
also contain hotel rooms.
IETF Hotels:
One or more hotels, in close proximity to the Facility, where the
primary IETF guest room allocations are negotiated and IETF SSIDs
are in use.
3.1. Venue City Criteria
These concern basic aspects of a candidate city:
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
+------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Criteria | Required |
+------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Travel to the Venue is acceptable based on cost, | "Mandatory |
| time, and burden for participants traveling from | " |
| multiple regions. It is anticipated that the burden | |
| borne will be generally shared over the course of | |
| multiple years. | |
+------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| The Venue is assessed as favorable for obtaining a | "Mandatory |
| 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. | |
+------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| It is possible to enter into a multi-event contract | "Desired" |
| with the Venue to optimize meeting and attendee | |
| benefits, i.e., reduce administrative costs and | |
| reduce direct attendee costs, will be considered a | |
| positive factor. Such a contract can be considered | |
| after at least one IETF meeting has been held at the | |
| Venue. | |
+------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Travel barriers to entry, e.g., visa requirements | "Mandatory |
| that can limit participation, are acceptable to the | " |
| IETF community. | |
+------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Economic, safety, and health risks associated with | "Mandatory |
| this Venue are acceptable to the IETF community. | " |
+------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Available travel issue assessments -- such as <https | "Mandatory |
| ://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country.htm | " |
| l> -- have been pointed out the IETF community. | |
| [[Editor's Note: This mostly concerns assessing the | |
| problems getting visa's and making the assessment 3 | |
| years in advance. What can we do that is meaningful? | |
| Also, are there better citations to include? /d]] | |
+------------------------------------------------------+------------+
3.2. Basic Venue Criteria
The IETF operates as an international organisational and adjusts to
local requirements. Facilities selected for IETF Meetings conform
with local health, safety and accessibility laws and regulations. A
useful discussion of related considerations in evaluating this
criterion is at: <http://www.sigaccess.org/welcome-to-
sigaccess/resources/accessible-conference-guide/>
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
Editor's Note: In the spirit of the 'international' focus, we need
a comprehensive document that is similar to the one cited, but
without a national focus. The current reference is US-specific.
/d
In addition:
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| Criteria | Required |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The Facility is adequate in size and layout to | "Mandatory" |
| accommodate the meeting and foster participant | |
| interaction. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The cost of guest rooms, meeting space, meeting | "Mandatory" |
| food and beverage is affordable, within the norms | |
| of business travel. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The economics of the Venue allow the meeting to be | "Mandatory" |
| net cash positive. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The Facility permits holding an IETF meeting under | "Desired" |
| "One Roof". That is, qualified meeting space and | |
| guest rooms are available in the same facility. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The Facility permits easy wheelchair access. | "Mandatory" |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The Facility is accessible by people with | "Important" |
| disabilities. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
3.3. Technical Services and Operations Criteria
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| Criteria | Required |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The Facility's support technologies and services -- | "Mandatory" |
| network, audio-video, etc. -- are sufficient for | |
| the anticipated activities at the meeting, or the | |
| Venue is willing to add such infrastructure or | |
| these support technologies and services might be | |
| provided by a third party, all at no -- or at an | |
| acceptable -- cost to the IETF. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The Facility directly provides, or permits and | "Mandatory" |
| facilitates, the delivery of a high performance, | |
| robust, unfiltered and unmodified IETF Network. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The IETF Hotel(s) directly provide, or else permit | "Mandatory" |
| 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. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The overflow hotels provide reasonable, reliable, | "Desired" |
| unfiltered Internet service for the public areas | |
| and guest rooms; this service is included in the | |
| cost of the room. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
3.4. Lodging Criteria
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| Criteria | Required |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The IETF Hotel(s) are within close proximity to | "Mandatory" |
| each other and the Venue. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The guest rooms at the IETF Hotel(s) are sufficient | "Mandatory" |
| in number to house 1/3 or more of projected meeting | |
| attendees. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| Overflow Hotels can be placed under contract, | "Mandatory" |
| within convenient travel time of the Venue and at a | |
| variety of guest room rates. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The Venue environs include budget hotels within | "Mandatory" |
| convenient travel time, cost, and effort. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The IETF Hotel(s) permit easy wheelchair access. | "Mandatory" |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The IETF Hotel(s) are accessible by people with | "Important" |
| disabilities. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The IETF Hotel should have a social space that | "Desired" |
| serves as a lounge, conducive to planned and | |
| accidental meetings and chatting, as well as | |
| working online. This is often an open bar, | |
| restaurant, or seating area, preferably on the | |
| ground/entrance floor, but can also be a meeting | |
| room, arranged to facilitate communal interaction | |
| among attendees. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
3.5. Food and Beverage Criteria
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| Criteria | Required |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The Venue environs, which includes both onsite, as | "Mandatory" |
| well as areas within a reasonable walking distance | |
| or conveniently accessible by a short taxi, bus, or | |
| subway ride, have convenient and inexpensive | |
| choices for meals that can accommodate a wide range | |
| of dietary requirements. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| The Venue environs include grocery shopping that | "Important" |
| will accommodate a wide range of dietary | |
| requirements, within a reasonable walking distance, | |
| or conveniently accessible by a short taxi, bus, or | |
| subway ride. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| A range of attendee's health-related and religion- | "Mandatory" |
| related dietary requirements can be satisfied with | |
| robust and flexible onsite service or through | |
| access to an adequate grocery. | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+-------------+
4. Venue Selection Roles
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.
4.1. The IETF Community
While perhaps obvious, it is important to note that IETF meetings
serve all those who contribute to the work of the IETF. This
includes those who attend meetings, from newcomer to frequent
attendee, to those who participate remotely, as well as those who do
not attend but contribute to new RFCs. Potential new contributors
are also considered in the process.
IETF consensus, with respect to this 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 or to be reported as consensus.
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
4.2. IESG and IETF Chair
The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) comprises the IETF
Area Directors and the IETF Chair. Along with the IAB, the IESG is
responsible for the management 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, among other things, relays
these IESG-determined policies to the IAOC. The IETF Chair is also a
member of the IAOC.
4.3. The Internet Society
With respect to IETF meetings, the Internet Society (ISOC):
o Executes all Venue contracts on behalf of the IETF at the request
of the IAOC
o Solicits meeting sponsorships
o 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.
4.4. 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.
4.5. 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.
4.6. 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
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
its efforts are documented, leading Venue contract negotiation, and
coordinating contract execution with ISOC. The meetings budget is
managed by the IAD.
4.7. IAOC Meeting Committee
The fundamental purpose of the Meetings 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 at: <https://iaoc.ietf.org/
committees.html#meetings>.
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.
5. Venue Selection Steps
The following is a guideline sequence for identifying and contracting
a Venue.
5.1. Identification
Four years out, a process identifies cities that might be candidates
for meetings:
a. The IAOC selects regions and dates for meetings.
b. A list of target cities per region is provided to the
Secretariat, with host preferences, if known.
c. Potential venues in preferred cities are identified and receive
preliminary investigation, 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 further 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.
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
5.2. Consultation
Preliminary question:
a. The IAOC asks the community whether there are any barriers to
holding a successful meeting in any of the target cities.
Community responses are reviewed and concerns investigated.
b. On a public web page, the IAOC lists all candidate cities, when
community input was solicited, and a summarization of the review
results.
c. The IAOC then provides a list of vetted cities to the Meetings
Committee to pursue as potential meeting locations.
5.3. 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
<https://iaoc.ietf.org/meetings-committee/venue-selection.html>;
the site visit team prepares a site report and discusses it with
the Meetings Committee.
5.4. Negotiation
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 might be
recommended.
b. IAOC selects a Venue for contracting as well as a back-up
contracting Venue, if available.
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
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 behalf.
d. Contracts are executed.
5.5. Final Check
~3 Months prior to the Meeting, the 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 meeting
in the contracted city and provides findings to the IAOC.
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.
6. Text carried forward
This document is being reorganized along an outline proposed by
Alissa Cooper. In preceding sections, her comment is made explicit.
That is intended to be removed when the reorganization is complete.
Text in this section is left over and will potentially be moved to
preceding sections.
6.1. Venue Selection Process
The process of selecting a Venue is described below and is based on
<https://iaoc.ietf.org/venue-selection.html>.
6.1.1. Venue Selection Principles
heading paragraph moved to Section 2.
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? Moved to Section 2.
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
Where do we meet? moved to Section 2.1
Inclusiveness: Moved to Section 2.1.
Internet Access: Moved to Section 2.1.
Focus: Moved to Section 2.1.
Economics: Moved to Section 2.1.
Political considerations: moved to Section 2.2 and reworded per
Alissa's suggested text.
6.1.2. 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:
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
it.
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
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
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.
6.1.3. Venue Selection Criteria
Heading text moved to Section 3.
6.1.3.1. Venue City Considerations
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]
6.1.3.2. Basic Venue Criteria
o moved to Section 3.2
o The Facility 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.
[Mandatory]
6.1.4. Venue Selection Phases
6.1.5. 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.
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
6.2. 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.
7. IANA Considerations
This memo asks the IANA for no new parameters.
8. Security Considerations
This note proposes no protocols, and therefore no new protocol
insecurities.
9. Privacy Considerations
This note reveals no personally identifying information apart from
its authorship.
10. Acknowledgements
This document was originally assembled and edited by Fred Baker.
Additional commentary came from Jari Arkko, Scott Bradner, and Alissa
Cooper. It was discussed on mtgvenue@ietf.org.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.krishnan-ietf-meeting-policy]
Krishnan, S., "High level guidance for the meeting policy
of the IETF", draft-krishnan-ietf-meeting-policy-01 (work
in progress), July 2016.
[MeetingNet]
O'Donoghue, K., Martin, J., Elliott, C., and J. Jaeggli,
"IETF Meeting Network Requirements", WEB
https://iaoc.ietf.org/ietf-network-requirements.html.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4071>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7691>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.barnes-healthy-food]
Barnes, M., "Healthy Food and Special Dietary Requirements
for IETF meetings", draft-barnes-healthy-food-07 (work in
progress), July 2013.
[RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
BCP 95, RFC 3935, October 2004.
Appendix A. Change Log
2016-01-12: Initial version
2016-01-21: Update to reflect https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/
VenueSelectionCriteriaJan2016.pdf and
https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/VenueSelectionProcess11Jan16.pdf,
accessed from https://iaoc.ietf.org/private/privatemeetings.html.
2016-02-23: Reorganize and capture IAOC Meetings Committee
discussions.
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.
posting as working group draft August 2, 2016
Reorganized per Alissa Cooper outline Work in progress. In
addition, contributors were re-organized to be authors.
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
2016-10-28 Editor changeover. Further alignment with guidance by
Alissa Cooper, Andrew Sullivan and the mtgvenue working group.
Many various changes.
2016-11-16 Extensive editorial, format and polishing pass. A few
substance changes, including food section.
2016-11-30 Additions based on working group meeting and off-list
discussions; more editorial and format hacking.
Authors' Addresses
Ray Pelletier
Internet Society
Email: rpelletier@isoc.org
Laura Nugent
Association Management Solutions
Email: lnugent@amsl.com
Dave Crocker (editor)
Brandenburg InternetWorking
Email: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net
Ole Jacobsen
The Internet Protocol Journal
Email: olejacobsen@me.com
Jim Martin
INOC
Email: jim@inoc.com
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Venue Selection November 2016
Fred Baker (editor)
Santa Barbara, California 93117
USA
Email: FredBaker.IETF@gmail.com
Pelletier, et al. Expires June 3, 2017 [Page 21]
