IAOC Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process
Cisco Systems
Santa Barbara
93117
California
USA
fred@cisco.com
General
IAOC
This documents the IAOC's IETF Meeting Venue Selection Process from
the perspective of its goals 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 and thought processes. 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.
This document 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.
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.
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.
The process of selecting a venue is described below and is based on
https://iaoc.ietf.org/venue-selection.html.
The IETF, and therefore the IAOC and its Meetings Committee, have
some core values that pervade the selection process. These are not
limited to the following, but at minimum include them.
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.
We meet to
advance Internet standards development, to advance Internet Drafts
and RFCs. We meet to facilitate attendee participation in multiple
topics and to enable cross-pollination of ideas and
technology.
We meet
in different locations globally in order to spread the pain and
cost of travel among active participants, balancing travel time
and expense across the regions from where IETF participants are
based. We also aim to enhance inclusiveness and new
contributions.
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. This principle of inclusiveness
militates against the selection of venues within countries that
impose visa regulations and/or laws that effectively exclude
people on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation,
or national origin, and to a lesser extent, reduces the likelihood
of selecting countries that use such attributes to make entry
difficult.
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 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 have their participation
underwritten by employers or sponsors, there are many who do not.
Locations that do not provide convenient budget alternatives for
food and lodging, or which are multiple travel segments from major
airports, are therefore exclusionary, and violate our value of
"Inclusiveness". Within reason, budget should not be a barrier to
accommodation.
The IETF does not make political statements. We do
not decide who is or is not a country, and we do not choose or not
choose venues based on political criteria.
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.
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 Meetings Committee will specifically review, and
affirm to its satisfaction, that all "Mandatory" labeled criteria are
satisfied by a particular venue and main IETF hotel as part of the
process defined below in .
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]
Travel barriers to entry, e.g., visa requirements that can
limit participation, are researched, noted, and carefully
considered. [Important]
Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this venue
are researched, reviewed and carefully considered, at the time
the selection is made, and thereafter as the time for the
meeting approaches. [Important]
Review available travel information (such as
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country.html) for
issues that would be counter to our principles on inclusiveness
etc. [Important]
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]
Prior successful IETF experience with the Venue and Venue
city will be considered as a positive factor when deciding among
multiple venues. [Would be nice]
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]
The Meeting Space is adequate in size and layout to
accommodate the meeting and foster participant interaction.
[Mandatory]
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 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]
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]
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]
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]
The following is specifically not among the selection
criteria:
Visiting new locations for the sake of variety in meeting
locations.
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. 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.
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.
In addition to the editor, text was developed by
Ray Pelletier Internet Society Email: rpelletier@isoc.org
Laura Nugent Association Management
Solutions +1 (510) 492-4008 Email: lnugent@amsl.com
Dave Crocker Brandenburg
InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 Email: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Lou Berger LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Email: lberger@labn.net
Ole Jacobsen The Internet Protocol
Journal +1 415 550-9433 Email: olejacobsen@me.com
Jim Martin INOC
+1 608 807-0454 Email: jim@inoc.com
Additional commentary came from Jari Arkko and Scott Bradner.
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.