mtgvenue                                                    E. Lear, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Best Current Practice                  October 26, 2017
Expires: April 29, 2018

              IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process


   The IASA 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

   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 April 29, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   ( 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

Lear                     Expires April 29, 2018                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                October 2017

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Venue Selection Objectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Core Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Venue Selection Non-Objectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Meeting Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Mandatory Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Important Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Other Consideraitons  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Venue Selection Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  IETF Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.2.  IESG and IETF Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  The Internet Society  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.4.  IETF Administrative Oversight Committee . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.5.  IETF Administrative Support Activity  . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.6.  IETF Administrative Director  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.7.  IAOC Meetings Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Venue Selection Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  Identification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.2.  Consultation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.3.  Qualification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.4.  Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.5.  Late Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

1.  Introduction

   The Internet Administrative Support Activity (IASA) has
   responsibility for arranging IETF plenary meeting venue selection and
   operation.  The purpose of this document is to guide the IASA in
   their selection of regions, cities, facilities, and hotels.  The IASA
   applies this guidance at different points in the process in an
   attempt to faithfully meet the requirements of the IETF community.
   We specify a set of general criteria for venue selection and several
   requirements for transparency and community consultation.

Lear                     Expires April 29, 2018                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                October 2017

   It remains the responsibility of the IASA to apply their best
   judgment.  The IASA accepts input and feedback both during the
   consultation process and later (for instance when there are changes
   in the situation at a chosen location).  Any appeals remain subject
   to the provisions of BCP101 [RFC4071].  As always, the community is
   encouraged to provide direct feedback to the Nominations Committee
   (NOMCOM), Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and IAB
   regarding the discharge of the IETF Administrative Oversight
   Committee's performance.

   Four terms describe the places for which the IETF contracts services:

      This is an umbrella term for the city, meeting resources and guest
      room resources.

      The building that houses meeting rooms and associated resources.
      It may also house an IETF Hotel.

   IETF Hotels:
      One or more hotels, in close proximity to the Facility, where the
      IETF guest room allocations are negotiated and IETF SSIDs are in

   Overflow Hotels:
      One or more hotels, usually in close proximity to the Facility,
      where the IETF has negotiated a group rate for the purposes of the
      meeting.  Of particular note is that overflow hotels usually are
      not connected to the IETF network and do not use IETF SSIDs.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.  Venue Selection Objectives

2.1.  Core Values

   Some IETF values pervade the selection process.  These often are
   applicable to multiple requirements listed in this document.  They
   are not limited to the following, but at minimum include:

   Why 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.

Lear                     Expires April 29, 2018                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                October 2017

      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
          inhibit, discourage, or 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.

   Where 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.  "Unfiltered
      access" in this case means that all forms of communication are
      allowed.  This includes, but is not limited to, access to
      corporate networks via encrypted VPNs from the meeting Facility
      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.  Beyond this, we are the first users of our own
      technology.  Any filtering may cause a problem with that
      technology development.  In some cases, local laws may require
      some filtering.  We seek to avoid such locales without reducing
      the pool of cities to an unacceptable level by stating a number of
      criteria below, one mandatory and others important, to allow for
      the case where local laws may require filtering in some

      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

Lear                     Expires April 29, 2018                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                October 2017

      that or reduce its effectiveness, and are therefore less desirable
      as a meeting Facility.

      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.

   Least Astonishment and Openness:
      Regular participants should not be surprised by meeting Venue
      selections, particularly when it comes to locales.  To avoid
      surprise, the venue selection process, as with all other IETF
      processes, should be as open as practicable.  It should be
      possible for the community to engage early to express its views on
      prospective selections, so that the community, the IETF
      Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), and Internet
      Administrative Director (IAD) can exchange views as to
      appropriateness long before a venue contract is considered.

2.2.  Venue Selection Non-Objectives

   IETF meeting Venues are not selected or declined with the explicit
   purposes of:

      Endorsing or condemning particular countries, political paradigms,
      laws, regulations, or policies.

   Maximal attendance:
      While the IETF strives to be as inclusive as possible both online
      and in person, maximal meeting attendance in and of itself is not
      a goal.  It would defeat a key goal of meeting if active
      contributors with differing points of view did not have the
      opportunity to resolve their disagreements, no matter how full the

      Variety in site-seeing experiences.

3.  Meeting Criteria

   This section contains the criteria for IETF meetings.  It is broken
   down into three subsections: mandatory criteria, important criteria,
   and other considerations, each as explained below.

Lear                     Expires April 29, 2018                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                October 2017

3.1.  Mandatory Criteria

   If criteria in this subsection cannot be met, a particular location
   is unacceptable for selection, and the IASA MUST NOT enter into a
   contract.  Should the IASA learn that a location no longer can meet a
   mandatory requirement after having entered into a contract, it will
   inform the community and address the matter on a case by case basis.

   o  The Facility MUST provide sufficient space in an appropriate
      layout to accommodate the expected number of people to attend that

   o  The Facility and IETF Hotels MUST provide wheelchair access to
      accommodate the number of people who are anticipated to require

   o  It MUST be possible to provision Internet Access to the Meeting
      Venue that allows attendees to utilize the Internet for all their
      IETF, business, and day to day needs.  This includes, but is not
      limited to, native and unmodified IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity,
      global reachability, and no additional limitation that would
      materially impact their Internet use.  To ensure availability, it
      MUST be possible to provision redundant paths to the Internet.

3.2.  Important Criteria

   The criteria in this subsection are not mandatory, but are still
   highly significant.  It may be necessary to trade one or more of
   these criteria off against others.  A Venue that meets more of these
   criteria is on the whole preferable than another that meets fewer of
   these criteria.  Requirements classed as Important can also be
   balanced across Venue selections for multiple meetings.  When a
   particular requirement in this section cannot be met, the IASA MUST
   notify the community at the time of the venue announcement.
   Furthermore, it may be appropriate for the IASA to assist those who,
   as a result, have been inconvenienced in some way.

3.2.1.  Venue City Criteria

   o  Travel to the Venue is 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 multiple years.

   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.

Lear                     Expires April 29, 2018                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                October 2017

   o  Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are likely
      to be such that an overwhelming majority of participants who wish
      to do so can attend.  The term "travel barriers" is to be read
      broadly by the IASA in the context of whether a successful meeting
      can be had.

   o  Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this Venue are

3.2.2.  Basic Venue Criteria

   The following requirements relate to the Venue and Facilities.

   The IETF operates internationally and adjusts to local requirements.
   Facilities selected for IETF Meetings SHALL have provided written
   assurance that they are in compliance with local health, safety and
   accessibility laws and regulations, and will remain in compliance
   throughout our stay.

   In addition:

   o  There are sufficient places (e.g., a mix of hallways, bars,
      meeting rooms, and restaurants) for people to hold ad hoc
      conversations and group discussions in the combination of spaces
      offered by the facilities, hotels and bars/restaurants in the
      surrounding area, within walking distance (5-10').

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

   o  The Facility is accessible or reasonable accommodations can be
      made to allow access by people with disabilities.

3.2.3.  Technical Meeting Needs

   The following criteria relate to technical meeting needs.

   o  The Facility's support technologies and services -- network,
      audio-video, etc. -- are sufficient for the anticipated activities
      at the meeting, or the Facility 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.

   o  The Facility directly provides, or permits and facilitates, the
      delivery of a high performance, robust, unfiltered and unmodified
      IETF Network.

Lear                     Expires April 29, 2018                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                October 2017

   o  The IETF Hotel(s) directly provide, or else 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.

3.2.4.  Hotel Needs

   The following criteria relate to IETF Hotels.

   o  The IETF Hotel(s) are within close proximity to each other and the

   o  The guest rooms at the IETF Hotel(s) are sufficient in number to
      house 1/3 or more of projected meeting attendees.

   o  Overflow Hotels can be placed under contract, within convenient
      travel time of the Facility and at a variety of guest room rates.

   o  The Facility environs include budget hotels within convenient
      travel time, cost, and effort.

   o  The IETF Hotel(s) are accessible by people with disabilities.
      While we mandate wheelchair accessibility, other forms are
      important, and should be provided to the extent possible, based on
      anticipated needs of the community.

   o  At least one IETF Hotel or the Facility has a space for use as a
      lounge, conducive to planned and ad hoc meetings and chatting, as
      well as working online.  There are tables with seating, convenient
      for small meetings with laptops.  These can be at an open bar or
      casual restaurant.  Preferably the lounge area is centrally
      located, permitting easy access to participants.

3.2.5.  Food and Beverage

   It is said that an army travels on its stomach.  So too does the
   IETF.  The following criteria relate to food and beverage.

   o  The Facility environs, which includes both onsite, as well as
      areas within a reasonable walking distance or conveniently
      accessible by a short taxi ride or by local public transportation,
      have convenient and inexpensive choices for meals that can
      accommodate a wide range of dietary requirements.

   o  A range of attendee's health-related and religion-related dietary
      requirements can be satisfied with robust and flexible onsite
      service or through access to an adequate grocery.

Lear                     Expires April 29, 2018                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                October 2017

   o  The Facility 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, from the Facility and IETF Hotels.

3.3.  Other Consideraitons

   The following considerations are desirable, but not as important as
   the preceding requirements, and thus should not be traded off for

   o  We have something of a preference for an IETF meeting to be under
      "One Roof".  That is, qualified meeting space and guest rooms are
      available in the same facility.

   o  It is desirable for overflow hotels provide reasonable, reliable,
      unfiltered Internet service for the public areas and guest rooms;
      this service is included in the cost of the room.

   o  It is desirable to enter into a multi-event contract with the
      Facility and IETF Hotels or associated hotel chains in case such a
      contract will either reduce administrative costs, reduce direct
      attendee costs, or both.

   o  Particularly when we are considering a city for the first time, it
      is desirable to have someone participate in the site visit who is
      familiar with both the locale and the IETF.  Such a person can
      provide guidance regarding safety, location of local services, and
      understanding best ways to get to and from the Venue, and local
      customs, as well as identify how our requirements are met.

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.  IETF Participants

   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 in person, from newcomer to
   frequent attendee, to those who participate remotely, as well as

Lear                     Expires April 29, 2018                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                October 2017

   those who do not attend but who also contribute their ideas.
   Potential new contributors are also considered in the process.

   Participants have a responsibility to express their views about
   venues early and often, by responding to surveys or other
   solicitations from IASA functions, and by initiating fresh input as
   the Participant becomes aware of changes in venues that have been
   reviewed.  This permits those responsible for venue selection to be
   made aware of concerns relating to particular locations well in
   advance of having entered into contract discussions.

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) or the
   Secretariat on ISOC's behalf:

   o  Executes all Venue contracts on behalf of the IETF at the request
      of the IASA

   o  Solicits meeting sponsorships

   o  Collects all meeting-related revenues, including registration
      fees, sponsorships, hotel commissions, and other miscellaneous

   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 and Secretariat to work with the Internet Society
   to write the relevant contracts.  It approves the IETF meetings
   calendar.  In cooperation with the IAD, the IAOC takes necessary
   actions to ensure that the IASA is aware of participant concerns
   about particular venues as early in the process as is feasible.

Lear                     Expires April 29, 2018                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                October 2017

4.5.  IETF Administrative Support Activity

   The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) performs the meeting
   selection process under the oversight of the IAOC.  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.  The
   IAD takes appropriate actions to solicit community input regarding
   both retrospective and prospective feedback from participants.

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 IASA to ensure the timely execution of the meeting process.  This
   includes participating in the IAOC Meetings Committee and ensuring
   its efforts are documented, overseeing Secretariat contract
   negotiations with the Venue, and coordinating contract execution with
   ISOC.  The meetings budget is managed by the IAD.

4.7.  IAOC Meetings 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: <

   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 sequence is used by the IAOC to select venues.  Unless
   otherwise stated below, the IAOC may evolve these steps over time
   without updating this document.

5.1.  Identification

   Four years out,the IASA identifies cities that might be candidates
   for meetings.  For example:

   a.  The IASA selects regions, cities, and dates for meetings.

Lear                     Expires April 29, 2018                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                October 2017

   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 IASA of investigated/target cities
       to consider further as well as issues identified and the results
       of research conducted.

5.2.  Consultation

   The IASA MUST consult the community about potential new venues prior
   to booking.  The timing and means by which it does so may vary over
   time, but MUST include references to any notable travel risks.  The
   consultation may overlap with the previous step (identification).

   For example:

   a.  The IAOC asks the community whether there are any barriers to
       holding a successful meeting in any of the target cities in the

   b.  Community responses are reviewed and concerns investigated by the
       Meetings Committee.  The results together with recommendations
       for whether each city should be considered as potential meeting
       location is provided to the IAOC.

   c.  The IAOC identifies which cities are to be considered as a
       potential meeting location.

   d.  On a public web page, the IAOC lists all candidate cities, when
       community input was solicited, and if a city is to be considered
       as a potential meeting location.

   e.  The Meetings Committee pursues potential meeting locations based
       on the posted list of cities that have been identified as a
       potential meeting locations.

Lear                     Expires April 29, 2018                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                October 2017

5.3.  Qualification


   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

   d.  Site qualification visit is conducted using the checklist along
       the lines of <
       PreQualSpecifications-19Oct2017.pdf>; the site visit team
       prepares a site report and discusses it with the Meetings

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.  The
       Meetings Committee will not recommend an option unless it meets
       all Mandatory criteria.

   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 behalf.

   d.  Contracts are executed.

   e.  The venue is announced.  At this time, the announcement MUST
       include any notable travel risks or references thereto.

5.5.  Late Changes

   If at any time after a contract is signed the IASA learns
   circumstances have changed such that it is not certain that Important
   or Mandatory criteria can be met by a Venue, the IASA MUST reconsider
   the selection.  A description of how reconsideration currently takes
   place is found in <

Lear                     Expires April 29, 2018                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                October 2017

   ContingencyPlanningFlowChart-2016.pdf>.  The IASA will gauge the cost
   of making a change against the ability of the IETF to conclude a
   successful meeting, and make a final determination based on their
   best judgment.  When there is enough time to do so, the IASA is
   expected to consult the community about changes.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This memo asks the IANA for no new parameters.

   [The RFC-Editor may remove this section prior to publicaiton.]

7.  Security Considerations

   This note proposes no protocols, and therefore no new protocol

8.  Privacy Considerations

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

   [The RFC-Editor may remove this section prior to publication.]

9.  Contributors

   The following people provided substantial text contributions to this

   Fred Baker

   Fred originated this work.

   Ray Pelletier
   Internet Society

   Laura Nugent
   Association Management Solutions

   Lou Berger
   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.

   Ole Jacobsen

Lear                     Expires April 29, 2018                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                October 2017

   The Internet Protocol Journal

   Jim Martin

10.  Acknowledgements

   Additional contributions came from Jari Arkko, Scott Bradner, Alissa
   Cooper, Dave Crocker, Jordi Palet Martinez, Andrew Sullivan, and
   other participants in the mtgvenue working group.  Those listed in
   this section or as contributors may or may not agree with the content
   of this memo.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

              O'Donoghue, K., Martin, J., Elliott, C., and J. Jaeggli,
              "IETF Meeting Network Requirements", WEB

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

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-

   [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, <>.

   [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,

Lear                     Expires April 29, 2018                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                October 2017

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3935]  Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
              BCP 95, RFC 3935, October 2004.

Appendix A.  Change Log

   [RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication.]

   2016-01-12:  Initial version

   2016-01-21:  Update to reflect
      VenueSelectionCriteriaJan2016.pdf and,
      accessed from

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

   2016-03-03:  Final from Design Team.

   2016-03-17:  First update incorporating 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.

   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.

   2016-12-24  Various clarifying bits to provide some glue between the
      high-level 'objectives' and the detailed criteria and roles, per
      suggestions fronm Lear.  Editorial changes, per 12/27 response to
      Cooper.  Refined uses of 'facility' and 'venue', per 12/4 response
      to Carpenter; also added Carpenter 'lounge' text.  Moved community
      consultation to a separate criterion; removed 'acceptable to the

Lear                     Expires April 29, 2018                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                October 2017

      IETF Community from the 2 entries that had it.  Removed Post-
      Seroul Revisions and Text Carried Forward.

   2016-12-24  Address comments made on list by Stephen Farrell
      <>.  Minor text change in Section 5.
      Replaced links in sections 5.3 and 5.5.

   2017-03-12  Add openness comment as requested by Stephen Farrell.
      Add statement about 4071 as proposed by Brian and modified by
      Jari.  Elaborated on what "unfiltered" means, based on discussion
      between Eliot and Stephen.  Preface to Section 5 as discussed
      between Lou and Stephen.  Slight editorial tweak to that by Eliot.
      IETF operates internationally, as proposed by Brian.

   2017-04-18  Add new introductory text.  Sharpen mandatory definition.
      Split first criteria into two, and reword them to be more
      actionable.  Remove net cash positive requirement.  Change many
      critera from Mandatory to Important.  Remove consensus text.
      Modify chapeau.  Add some normative MUSTs in Section 5, and
      restructure Section 5.5.  A bunch of other stuff as well.  Use

   2017-05-14  Happy Mother's Day.  This version removes the tabular
      format of requirements, moves mandatory requirements up front,
      adds a desiderata section, adds a mandatory filtering requirement,
      consolidates introductory text, moves procedural requirements into
      Section 5, removes the definition of Headquarters Hotel, removes
      the MUST in late changes, and adds a desire for a local
      participant in site selection.

   2017-09-12  These are last call edits.  Big change is around Internet
      requirements.  Also, address Andrew Sullivan comments, as well as
      SM comments.  Brian Carpenter big scrub on IAOC to IASA.

   2017-10-20  Final edits based on Laura Nugent's review.  Most are
      editorial for clarity.  Also, remove large table and link to the
      live copy.

Author's Address

   Eliot Lear (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   Richtistrasse 7
   Wallisellen  CH-8304

   Phone: +41 44 878 9200

Lear                     Expires April 29, 2018                [Page 17]