[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

mtgvenue                                                    E. Lear, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Best Current Practice                     June 14, 2018
Expires: December 16, 2018

              IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process


   The IASA has responsibility for arranging IETF plenary meeting Venue
   selection and operation.  This memo specifies IETF community
   requirements for meeting venues, including hotels and meeting room
   space.  It directs the IASA to make available additional process
   documents that describe the current meeting selection process.

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 https://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 December 16, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (https://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.

Lear                    Expires December 16, 2018               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                   June 2018

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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Important Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Other Consideraitons  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Documentation Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

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.

   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 IASA'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.

Lear                    Expires December 16, 2018               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                   June 2018

      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 block allocations are negotiated and where network
      services managed by the IASA (e.g., the "IETF" SSID) are in use.

   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 network services
      managed by the IASA.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

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.

      We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote participation of
      anyone who wants to be involved.  Widespread participation
      contributes to the diversity of perspectives represented in the
      working sessions

      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

Lear                    Expires December 16, 2018               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                   June 2018

          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, ethnicity, religion, gender,
          sexual orientation, national origin, citizenship, or gender

   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 participants
      are based.  Our regional location policy is articulated in

   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 their 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, 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

      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

Lear                    Expires December 16, 2018               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                   June 2018

      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 and the IASA 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.

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.

Lear                    Expires December 16, 2018               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                   June 2018

   o  The Facility MUST provide sufficient space in an appropriate
      layout to accommodate the expected number of participants,
      leadership, and support staff to attend that meeting.

   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 Facility
      and IETF Hotels that allows those attending in person to utilize
      the Internet for all their IETF, business, and day to day needs;
      as well as sufficient bandwidth and access for remote attendees.
      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 that it is
      possible and probable to find a host and sponsors.

   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.

Lear                    Expires December 16, 2018               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                   June 2018

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

   o  The selection of the venue comports with

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 minutes).

   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 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,
      and that this service be included in the cost of the room.

Lear                    Expires December 16, 2018               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                   June 2018

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 to and from 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

   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.

   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.

Lear                    Expires December 16, 2018               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                   June 2018

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 to provide reasonable,
      reliable, unfiltered Internet service for the public areas and
      guest rooms, and that this service be included in the cost of the

   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.  Documentation Requirements

   The IETF Community works best when it is well informed.  This memo
   does not specify processes nor who has responsibility for fulfilling
   our requirements for meetings.  Nevertheless, both of these aspects
   are important.  Therefore, the IASA SHALL publicly document and keep
   current both a list of roles and responsibilities relating to IETF
   meetings, as well as the selection processes they use in order to
   fulfill the requirements of the community.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This memo asks the IANA for no new parameters.

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

6.  Security Considerations

   This note proposes no protocols, and therefore no new protocol

Lear                    Expires December 16, 2018               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                   June 2018

7.  Privacy Considerations

   Different places have different constraints on individual privacy.
   The requirements in this memo are intended to provide for some
   limited protections.  As meetings are announced, IASA SHALL inform
   the IETF of any limitations to privacy they have become aware of in
   their investigations.  For example, participants would be informed of
   any regulatory authentication or logging requirements.

8.  Contributors

   The following people provided substantial text contributions to this

   Fred Baker
   Email: fred.ietf@gmail.com

   Fred originated this work.

   Ray Pelletier
   Email: Rpelletier13@gmail.com

   Laura Nugent
   Association Management Solutions
   Email: lnugent@amsl.com

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

   Ole Jacobsen
   The Internet Protocol Journal
   EMail: olejacobsen@me.com

   Jim Martin
   Email: jim@inoc.com

9.  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.

Lear                    Expires December 16, 2018              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                   June 2018

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

              Krishnan, S., "High level guidance for the meeting policy
              of the IETF", draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-06 (work
              in progress), May 2018.

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

   [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,

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3935]  Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
              BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,

   [RFC6771]  Eggert, L. and G. Camarillo, "Considerations for Having a
              Successful "Bar BOF" Side Meeting", RFC 6771,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6771, October 2012,

Appendix A.  Change Log

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

   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

Lear                    Expires December 16, 2018              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                   June 2018

   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.

   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
      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
      <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>.  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

Lear                    Expires December 16, 2018              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft               Venue Selection                   June 2018

      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 from WGLC based on Laura Nugent's review.
      Most are editorial for clarity.  Also, remove large table and link
      to the live copy.

   2018-01-10  Changes based on AD review.

   2018-02-02  Changes based on genart review and IETF last call.

   2018-05-07  Several versions of changes.  Based on reorg of meetings
      committee, Section 4 and 5 moved out.  Also, final LC comments
      addressed.  In particular: no smoking added.  Reference to RFC8174
      added.  Reference to meeting policy doc added.

   2018-05-11  Remove no smoking.

Author's Address

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

   Phone: +41 44 878 9200
   Email: lear@cisco.com

Lear                    Expires December 16, 2018              [Page 13]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/