IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process
Internet Society
93117
California
USA
FredBaker.IETF@gmail.com
General
mtgvenue
This documents 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.
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.
Following IETF 94 and at IETF 95 there was a discussion on the IETF
list of the selection process and criteria for IETF meetings. In
response to that discussion, the IAOC and the IAOC Meetings Committee
took it upon themselves to more publicly document its process and
involve community input.
Requirements called out in this document are identified as either
"mandatory" or "desired", and considerations are tagged as "Important"
or "Would be nice". For clarity, the terms are defined here:
If this requirement cannot be met, a
location under consideration is unacceptable. We walk away.
We would very much like to meet this
requirement, but have frequently been unable to. The fact that we
could not meet it is considered in comparison to other sites.
Can be a make-or-break consideration, but
can also be traded off against other considerations.
Not make-or-break, but warrants
additional consideration if found to be true.
Alissa's comment: "Why do we meet?," "Inclusiveness," and perhaps
reformulated versions of some other items listed, per
draft-sullivan-mtgvenue-decisions; 3.2)
Editor comment: This section is believed to be complete. /d
The IETF has some core values that to pervade the selection process.
The values are not limited to the following, but at minimum include
them.
We
meet to advance 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.
Every country has limits on who it will permit within its
borders. However the IETF seeks to:
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
Avoid meeting in countries with laws that effectively exclude
people on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual
orientation, national origin, or gender identity.
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.
As an
organization, we write specifications for the Internet, and we use
it heavily. Meeting attendees need unfiltered access to the
general Internet and our corporate networks, which are usually
reached using encrypted VPNs from the meeting venue and hotels,
including overflow hotels. We also need open network access
available at high enough data rates to support our work, including
the support of remote participation.
We meet to have
focused technical discussions. These are not limited to 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.
Meeting
attendees participate as individuals. While many are underwritten
by employers or sponsors, many are self-funded. In order to reduce
participations costs and travel effort, we therefore seek
locations that provide convenient budget alternatives for food and
lodging, and which are minimize travel segments from major
airports. Within reason, budget should not be a barrier to
accommodation.
There may be other points from to move here.
Editor comment: This section is believed to be complete. /d
Alissa's comment: ( 3.1 "Political considerations," 3.4)
Editor comment: This section is believed to be complete. /d
IETF meeting venues are not selected or declined with the explicit
purposes of:
Endorsing or condemning particular countries, political
paradigms, laws, regulations, or policies.
Variety in site-seeing experiences.
A number of criteria are considered during the site selection process.
The list following is not sorted in any particular order, but includes
the committee's major considerations.
The selection of a venue always requires trade-offs. There are no
perfect venues. For example, a site may not have a single hotel that can
accommodate a significant number of the attendees of a typical IETF.
That doesn't disqualify it, but it may reduce its desirability in the
presence of an alternative that does.
Each identified criterion is labeled with the terms defined above in
, i.e., "Mandatory", "Desired",
"Important" or "Would be nice". These terms guide the trade-off analysis
portion of the selection process. All "Mandatory" labeled criteria must
be met for a venue to be selected. The remaining terms may be viewed as
weighting factors.
There are times where the evaluation of the criteria will be
subjective. This is even the case for criteria labeled as "Mandatory".
For this reason, the IAOC and Meetings Committee will specifically
review, and affirm to their satisfaction, that all "Mandatory" labeled
criteria are satisfied by a particular venue and main IETF hotel as part
of the process defined below in .
Alissa's comment: 3.3.1 bullets 1, 5, 6, plus other bullets from
if
reformulated as criteria)
Note that these considerations are not "make or break" but flexible
enough to allow for trade-offs and judgement on the part of the IAOC.
Ideally, a city will meet all criteria. If all criteria cannot be met,
the IETF community needs to consider the trade-off acceptable.
Travel to the venue is reasonably acceptable based on cost, time,
and burden for participants traveling from multiple regions. It is
anticipated that the burden borne will be generally shared over
the course of the year. [Important]
Resolve Important vs. Mandatory.
d/
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.
[Important]
Resolve Important vs. Mandatory.
d/
It is possible 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, will be
considered a positive factor. [Would be nice]
Travel barriers to entry, e.g., visa requirements that can limit
participation, are acceptable to the IETF community.
[Important]
Resolve Important vs. Mandatory.
d/
Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this venue are
acceptable to the IETF community. [Important]
Resolve Important vs. Mandatory.
d/
Available travel issue assessments (such as
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country.html) have
been pointed out the IETF community. [Important]
Resolve Important vs. Mandatory.
d/
Alissa's comment: ( 3.3.2 bullets 1, 3, 4, 5, 6)
The Meeting Space is adequate in size and layout to accommodate
the meeting and foster participant interaction. [Mandatory]
The cost of guest rooms, meeting space, meeting food and beverage
is affordable (within the norms of business travel).
[Mandatory]
The economics of the venue allow the meeting to be net cash
positive [Mandatory].
An Optimal Facility for an IETF meeting is held under "One Roof",
that is, qualified meeting space and guest rooms are available in
the same facility. [Desired]
An Optimal Facility for an IETF meeting is accessible by people
with disabilities.
The selected facility conforms with local accessibility laws
and regulations [Mandatory]
http://www.sigaccess.org/welcome-to-sigaccess/resources/accessible-conference-guide/
provides a definition of related considerations that shall be
used in evaluating this criterion. [Desired]
Alissa's comment: ( 3.3.3)
The Venue's support technologies and services -- network, audio-
video, etc., are sufficient for the anticipated activities at the
meeting, or the venue is willing to add such infrastructure at no
or at an acceptable cost to the IETF. [Mandatory]
The meeting venue must permit and facilitate the delivery of a
high performance, robust, unfiltered and unmodified IETF Network.
[Mandatory]
The IETF hotel(s), which are one or more hotels in close
proximity to the venue where the primary IETF room allocations are
negotiated and the IETF SSIDs are in use, must provide, or permit
and facilitate, the delivery of a high performance, robust,
unfiltered and unmodified Internet service for the public areas
and guest rooms. This service is typically included in the cost of
the room. [Mandatory]
The overflow hotels should provide reasonable, reliable,
unfiltered Internet service for the public areas and guest rooms.
This service is typically included in the cost of the room.
[Desired]
Alissa's comment: ( 3.3.4)
The IETF hotel(s) are within close proximity to each other and
the venue. [Mandatory]
The Guest Rooms at the IETF hotel(s) are sufficient in number to
house 1/3 or more of projected meeting attendees. [Mandatory]
The Venue environs include budget hotels within convenient travel
time, cost, and effort. [Mandatory]
Overflow Hotels that can be placed under contract. They typically
must be within convenient travel time of the venue and have a
variety of guest room rates. [Mandatory]
The IETF hotel(s) are accessible by people with disabilities.
The selected facility conforms with local accessibility laws
and regulations [Mandatory]
http://www.sigaccess.org/welcome-to-sigaccess/resources/accessible-conference-guide/
provides a definition of related considerations that shall be
used in evaluating this criterion. [Desired]
Alissa's comment: ( 3.3.5)
The Venue environs, which includes onsite, and the areas within a
reasonable walking distance, or conveniently accessible by a short
taxi, bus, or subway ride, has convenient and inexpensive choices
for meals that can accommodate a wide range of dietary
requirements. [Mandatory]
The Venue environs include grocery shopping that will accommodate
a wide range of dietary requirements, within a reasonable walking
distance, or conveniently accessible by a short taxi, bus, or
subway ride. [Desired]
Alissa's comment: ( 2)
The formal structure of IETF administrative support functions is
documented in BCP 101. 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.
While somewhat obvious to most, it is important to note that IETF
meetings serve all those who contribute to the development of IETF
RFCs. This includes those who attend meetings, from newcomer to
frequent attendee, to those who participate remotely, and to those who
don't attend but contribute to new RFCs. Potential new contributors
are also considered in the process.
IETF consensus with respect to the meeting venue selection process is
judged via standard IETF process and not by any other means, e.g.,
surveys. Surveys are used to gather information related to meeting
venues, but not to measure consensus.
The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is a group comprised
of the IETF Area Directors and the IETF Chair. The IESG is responsible
for the management, along with the IAB, of the IETF, and is the
standards approval board for the IETF, as described in BCP9. This means that the IESG sets high
level policies related to, among other things, meeting venues. The
IETF Chair is a member of the IESG who, among other things, relays
policies to the IAOC. The IETF Chair is also a member of the IAOC.
The Internet Society (ISOC) executes all venue contracts on behalf of
the IETF at the request of the IAOC; solicits meeting sponsorships;
collects all meeting-related revenues, including registration fees,
sponsorships, hotel commissions, and other miscellaneous revenues.
ISOC also provides accounting services, such as invoicing and monthly
financial statements. The meetings budget is managed by the IAD.
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.
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.
The IETF Administrative Director (IAD) coordinates and supports the
activities of the IETF Secretariat, the IAOC Meetings Committee and
the IAOC to ensure the timely execution of the meeting process. This
includes participating in the IAOC Meeting Subcommittee and ensuring
its efforts are documented, leading venue contract negotiation, and
coordinating contract execution with ISOC.
The IAOC Meeting Committee is generally referred to as the Meetings
Committee.
The fundamental purpose of the committee is to participate in the
venue selection process, and to formulate recommendations to the IAOC
regarding meeting sites. It also tracks the meetings sponsorship
program, recommends extraordinary meeting-related expenses, and
recommends the IETF meetings calendar to the IAOC. The charter of the
committee is located here:
https://iaoc.ietf.org/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.
Alissa's comment: ( 3.5, perhaps with additional detail currently
in 3.3.1 bullets 2, 3, 4)
Commencing the process four years in advance of an event results in
the following schedule as a guideline:
Identification and Preliminary Investigation
Four years out, a process
identifies cities for meetings and initiates site selection.
The IAOC selects regions for meetings.
Meeting target cities per region are provided to the
Secretariat based upon Meetings Committee input and, if known,
host preferences.
Potential venues in preferred cities identified and
investigated, including reviews of Official Advisory Sources,
consultation with specialty travel services, frequent
travelers and local contacts to identify possible barriers to
holding a successful meeting in the target cities.
Investigated cities and findings are provided by the
Secretariat to the Meetings Committee for review. Meetings
Committee makes a recommendation to the IAOC of
investigated/target cities to consider further as well as
issues identified and the results of research conducted.
Community Consultation The IAOC asks the community whether there are any
barriers to holding a successful meeting in the target cities.
Community responses are reviewed and concerns investigated. The
IAOC shall maintain a public web page that lists all target
cities, when community input was solicited, and summarized review
results. Once review results are published the IAOC provides a
list of vetted cities to the Meetings Committee to pursue as
potential meeting locations.
Vetted Venues Evaluated for Site
Qualification Visit
Secretariat Assesses "vetted" target cities to determine
availability and conformance to criteria
Meetings Committee approves potential cities for site
qualification visit.
Site qualification visits are arranged by Secretariat and
preliminary negotiations are undertaken with selected
potential sites
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.
Qualified Venues Evaluated for Contract
2.75 - 3 years out, initiate
contract negotiations.
The Meetings Committee reviews the venue options based on
venue selection criteria and recommends a venue to the IAOC.
Only options that meet all Mandatory labeled criteria may be
recommended.
IAOC selects a venue for contracting as well as a back-up
contracting venue, if available.
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.
Contracts are executed.
Evaluation and Contingency Planning 3 Months Prior to the Meeting, the
meeting site is checked for continued availability and conformance
to expectations.
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.
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.
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.
The process of selecting a venue is described below and is based on
https://iaoc.ietf.org/venue-selection.html.
heading paragraph moved to .
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.
Moved to .
moved to
Moved to .
Moved to .
Moved to .
Moved to .
moved to and reworded per Alissa's
suggested text.
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:
Advancing standards development
Facilitating participation by active contributors
Sharing the travel pain; balancing travel time and expense
across the regions from where IETF participants are based.
Encouraging new contributors
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 . 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 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.
Heading text moved to .
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]
moved to
The venue and hotels can be put under contract. The
subsequent failure to put a selected venue under contract will
result in a re-evaluation of the venues and selection for the
meeting. [Mandatory]
The foregoing process works with reasonable certainty in North
America and Europe.
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.
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.
This memo asks the IANA for no new parameters.
This note proposes no protocols, and therefore no new protocol
insecurities.
This note reveals no personally identifying information apart from its
authorship.
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.
IETF Meeting Network Requirements
Initial version
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.
Reorganize and capture IAOC Meetings
Committee discussions.
Final from Design Team.
First update incorporating mtgvenue@ietf.org
comments
Updated in accordance with editing by Laura
Nugent, Dave Crocker, Lou Berger, Fred Baker, and others.
August 2, 2016
Work in progress.
In addition, contributors were re-organized to be authors.
Editor changeover. Further alignment with
guidance by Alissa Cooper, Andrew Sullivan and the mgtvenue working
group. Many various changes.