IAOC | F. Baker, Ed. |
Internet-Draft | Cisco Systems |
Intended status: Best Current Practice | March 17, 2016 |
Expires: September 18, 2016 |
IAOC Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process
draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-01
This documents the IAOC's IETF Meeting Venue Selection Process.
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 http://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 September 18, 2016.
Copyright (c) 2016 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 (http://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.
This document describes the IETF Meeting Venue Selection Process. In December 2015 and January 2016, 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 create this document.
This document describes the process that is expected to be followed.
Requirements called out in this document are identified as either "mandatory" or "desired". For clarity, the terms are defined here:
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.
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 [RFC2026]. 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.
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:
There is an explicit intent to rotate meeting locations equally among North America, Europe/Africa, and Asia/ Australia regions 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 following the 1-1-1* model per year: 1 meeting in Europe, 1 in North America, and 1 in Asia/Pacific, with a possibility ("*") of a meeting outside those regions. This policy, which known as the 1-1-1* model, is set by the IESG, https://iaoc.ietf.org/minutes/2010-11-10-iaoc-minutes.txt. The reason for the multi-year timeframe is fundamentally 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 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 1-1-1 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, both for the 1-1-1 regions and other regions.
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.
The following is specifically not among the selection criteria:
Commencing the process four years in advance of an event results in the following schedule as a guideline:
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 note was developed by Dave Crocker, Fred Baker, Jari Arkko, Jim Martin, Laura Nugent, Lou Berger, Ole Jacobsen, Ray Pelletier, and Scott Bradner.
[RFC2026] | Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996. |
[RFC4071] | Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC 4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005. |
[RFC4371] | Carpenter, B. and L. Lynch, "BCP 101 Update for IPR Trust", BCP 101, RFC 4371, DOI 10.17487/RFC4371, January 2006. |
[RFC7691] | Bradner, S., "Updating the Term Dates of IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) Members", BCP 101, RFC 7691, DOI 10.17487/RFC7691, November 2015. |
[I-D.barnes-healthy-food] | Barnes, M., "Healthy Food and Special Dietary Requirements for IETF meetings", Internet-Draft draft-barnes-healthy-food-07, July 2013. |