Internet Engineering Task Force                              S. Krishnan
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Intended status: Best Current Practice                  January 12, 2017
Expires: July 16, 2017

         High level guidance for the meeting policy of the IETF


   This document describes a proposed meeting policy for the IETF and
   the various stakeholders for realizing such a policy.

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 July 16, 2017.

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

Krishnan                  Expires July 16, 2017                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             IETF Meeting Policy              January 2017

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  The 1-1-1-* meeting policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Implementation of the policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Re-evaluation and changes to this policy  . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Open items  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   The work of the IETF is primarily conducted on the working group
   mailing lists, while face-to-face WG meetings mainly provide a high
   bandwidth mechanism for working out unresolved issues.  The IETF
   currently strives to have a 1-1-1-* meeting policy [IETFMEET]where
   the goal is to distribute the meetings equally between North America,
   Europe, and Asia that are the locations most of the IETF participants
   have come from in the recent past.  This meeting rotation is mainly
   aimed at distributing the travel pain for the existing IETF
   participants who physically attend meetings and for distributing the
   timezone pain for those who participate remotely.  This policy has
   neither been defined precisely nor documented in an IETF consensus
   document.  The goal of this document is to provide an initial
   definition of the policy, and eventually to get a consensus-backed
   version published as a BCP.

2.  The 1-1-1-* meeting policy

   Given that the majority of the current participants come from North
   America, Europe, and Asia [CONT-DIST], the IETF policy is that our
   meetings should primarily be in those regions. i.e., the meeting
   policy (let's call this the "1-1-1" policy) is that meetings should
   rotate between North America, Europe, and Asia.  It is important to
   note that such rotation and any effects to distributing travel pain
   should be considered from a long-term perspective.  While the typical
   cycle in an IETF year may be a meeting in North America in March, a
   meeting in Europe in July, and a meeting in Asia on November, the
   1-1-1 policy does not mandate such a cycle, as long as the
   distribution to these regions over multiple years is roughy equal.
   There are many reasons why meetings might be distributed differently
   in a given year, and that is fine as long as the distribution in
   subsequent years balances out the disruptions.

Krishnan                  Expires July 16, 2017                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             IETF Meeting Policy              January 2017

   BACKGROUND NOTE:The IETF recognizes that we have not always been
   successful in following this policy over the past few years.  In
   fact, at the time of writing, going back 6 years the meeting
   locations resemble more the previous 3-2-1 policy (9 Americas, 6
   Europe and 3 Asia).  This is attributable to two reasons:

   o  we plan meetings 3 years ahead (meaning meetings for 3 of the 6
      years had already been planned when the new policy was set)

   o  there were some logistical issues (venue availability, cost etc.).

   While this meeting rotation caters to the current set of IETF
   participants, we need to recognize that due to the dynamic and
   evolving nature of participation, there may be significant changes to
   the regions that provide a major share of participants in the future.
   The 1-1-1-* meeting policy is a slightly modified version of the
   aforementioned 1-1-1 meeting policy that allows for additional
   flexibility in the form of a wildcard meeting denoted as a "*".  This
   wildcard meeting can be used to experiment with exceptional meetings
   without extensively impacting the regular meetings. e.g. these
   wildcard meetings can include meetings in other geographical regions,
   virtual meetings and additional meetings past the three regular
   meetings in a calendar year.

   The wildcard meeting proposals will be initiated based on community
   consent.  After such a proposal is initiated the IESG will make a
   decision in consultation with the IAOC [RFC4071] to ensure that the
   proposal can be realistically implemented.  The final decision will
   be communicated back to the community to ensure that there is
   adequate opportunity to comment.

   NOTE: There have not been many such wildcard meetings in the past
   (with IETF95 in Buenos Aires and IETF47 in Adelaide being the
   exceptional instances).  How often we intend to do such meetings in
   the future should also be an open topic for discussion within the

3.  Implementation of the policy

   Once this meeting policy has been agreed upon, the policy will be
   provided to the IAOC as high level guidance.  Similarly, any wildcard
   meeting decisions will also be communicated to the IAOC to be
   implemented.  The actual selection of the venue would be performed by
   the IAOC following the process described in

   The IAOC will also be responsible

Krishnan                  Expires July 16, 2017                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             IETF Meeting Policy              January 2017

   o  to assist the community in the development of detailed meeting
      criteria that are feasible and implementable, and

   o  to provide sufficient transparency in a timely manner concerning
      planned meetings so that community feedback can be collected and
      acted upon.

4.  Re-evaluation and changes to this policy

   Given the dynamic nature of participant distribution in the IETF, it
   is expected that this policy needs to be periodically evaluated and
   revised to ensure that the stated goals continue to be met.  The
   criteria that are to be met to initiate a revision need to be agreed
   upon by the community prior to the publication of this document.
   (e.g. try to mirror draft author distribution over the preceding five

5.  Open items

   There has been some discussion on whether attracting new particpants
   is one of the stated goals of this policy.  This should be one of the
   things to be discussed and agreed upon with the community as the
   draft progresses.

   This draft uses the terms North America, Europe and Asia without a
   precise definition of the geographical regions.  This might lead to
   some ambiguities.  Is this ambiguity something that is desirable or
   not?  Or should we redefine the regions based on other criteria such
   as the distribution of RIRs (e.g.  ARIN/RIPE/APNIC), the UN
   statistical department's classification of macro geographical

   Do we need to predefine success criteria for the wildcard meetings?

6.  Acknowledgments

   The author would like to thank Jari Arkko, Alissa Cooper, Spencer
   Dawkins, Stephen Farrell, Bob Hinden, Ray Pelletier, Tobias Gondrom,
   Eric Gray, Melinda Shore, Dave Crocker, Brian Carpenter, Eliot Lear,
   Andrew Malis, Olaf Kolkman, Ole Jacobsen and Yoav Nir for their ideas
   and comments to improve this document.

7.  References

Krishnan                  Expires July 16, 2017                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             IETF Meeting Policy              January 2017

7.1.  Normative References

   [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,

7.2.  Informative References

    , "Distribution of authors by continent", 2016,

              Baker, F., "IAOC Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process",
              draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-03 (work
              in progress), July 2016.

              IAOC Plenary Presentation, "IETF 1-1-1 Meeting Policy",
              2010, <

Author's Address

   Suresh Krishnan


Krishnan                  Expires July 16, 2017                 [Page 5]