Internet DRAFT - draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria
draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria
Internet Engineering Task Force J. Palet
Internet-Draft Consulintel
Expires: July 20, 2006 January 16, 2006
IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria
draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 20, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document provides the IAD with technical and logistic criteria
for selecting venues for IETF meetings.
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria January 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Location and Hosting Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Vacation Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Hosting and Sponsorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Freedom of Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Productivity and Working Environment . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.6. Decision and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Logistic Criteria for Venue Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Meeting Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Other Venue Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Sleeping Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. Local Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. Airport/Wide-Area Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6. Food Logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.7. Technical and Regulatory Considerations . . . . . . . . . 12
3.8. Health Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Logistic Risks and Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Technical Requirements and Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Timing and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Venue Acceptance/Rejection Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Process and Openness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 18
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria January 2006
1. Introduction
IETF meetings are an important part of the IETF process. As such,
their hosting and organization should be planned carefully. This
will ensure that attendees make the best use of their meeting time,
maximize they performance and that unexpected developments (such as
cancellations, inadequate working conditions, and unreliable
connectivity) do not occur.
This document describes logistic and technical criteria for venue
selection, logistic and technical contingency measures, and details
related to the planning and timing of meetings.
Generally, this document does not present a strict list of "MUST"
items. Instead, it lists what needs to be evaluated, various
alternative solutions, or combinations thereof, that may apply. In
the end, the IAD will make the final decision and will be accountable
for it, and therefore he is responsible for applying the criteria
defined in this document according to the hosting/sponsorship
availability.
Experience shows that things could go wrong when there is too strict
a dependence on specific people or equipment and when no alternatives
are provisioned for. Consequently, contingencies are a very
important consideration.
2. Location and Hosting Criteria
The number of participants in the IETF is growing. Although many of
these participants are from North America, experience shows that when
a meeting is organized elsewhere, fewer than half the participants
come from there. Consequently, to ensure open international access,
it has been suggested that the IETF meet outside North America at
least once every three times.
However, this recommendation is often too simple. The overall
selection criteria from this document will qualify the location.
When a location is being chosen, it is important to consider that the
monetary surplus coming from the meetings goes toward sustaining the
IETF. Each meeting's overall cost should be considered part of a
global operation. A lower meeting cost (food, facilities, network,
meeting fees, host capabilities, sponsorship) may not necessarily
mean a lower secretariat cost. At the same time, the overall average
participant cost must also be taken in consideration. Although a
cheap venue generates a high surplus for the IETF, the average cost
for attendees (flights, hotels, other costs) might become much more
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria January 2006
expensive, which might generate a drop in the attendance.
2.1. Vacation Destinations
Vacation destinations may seem difficult for some people to justify
as a business expense, but for a few people this could also be true
for other situations. Often, frequent contributors to the IETF will
not need to justify their participation regardless of the location.
If a vacation spot is to be chosen as a meeting location, places with
a very heavy concentration of visitors should be avoided. Congested
airport traffic could make transit for IETF participants difficult.
It should be confirmed that the additional load caused by IETF
participants would not be an issue.
2.2. Hosting and Sponsorship
The choice of continent and country depends not only on the
logistical and technical criteria listed in this document, but also
on offers of hosting and sponsorship. The IETF desires to meet in
countries with significant actual or potential participation.
Hosting and sponsorship have a particular financial and
organizational impact. Experience shows that when the IETF goes to a
new country, an eager and committed local host organization is vital.
A local host willing to sponsor some facilities for the meeting
(without marketing noise) may be of great budgetary assistance,
regardless of the country.
Some of these matters may be subject to confidential negotiations,
which should be in the hands of IASA and, in particular, the IAD [1].
Regarding the sponsorship itself, the meetings are not directly
rewarding as a marketing action, as is usually the case for other
events. This is because the IETF community mainly comprises
engineers, who are generally not the decision makers who may become
customers. However, sponsoring IETF offers an important reward from
the perspective of community contribution. This "lower-level" reward
is one more reason to make sure that not all sponsorship details are
openly disseminated, unless the host clearly authorizes this. Even
if the host does, open dissemination can be counterproductive for
future meetings.
However it may be interesting to have, after each meeting, a summary
evaluation of all the issues and costs, overall figures, which will
help to improve the criteria and the performance of the following
meetings.
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria January 2006
2.3. Freedom of Participation
Meetings should not be held in countries where some attendees could
be disallowed entry or where freedom of speech is not guaranteed for
all participants.
IETF is an open organization, and anyone from any region should
always be able to participate, so the meeting place cannot be a
barrier.
The country hosting the IETF meeting should not restrict the
participant's freedom of expression; for example, by blocking web
sites or redirecting dns that may be required during the meeting for
usual participant's business, censoring of personal communications,
blocking of VPN/SSH and other similar practices.
Freedom of speech during the meeting must be guaranteed.
Abridged participation by local participants should be seriously
considered as well. For example, local participants could be under
pressure to support national technical policies on threat of
imprisonment or other punitive actions.
Local participants should be able to attend a meeting without any
special government approval. Otherwise, the venue does not support
increased local participation, which is one of the IETF's goals.
2.4. Productivity and Working Environment
The productivity of working groups in IETF meetings is very
important. This means that the "ideal" venue should try to
facilitate good participation from frequent WG contributors and lots
of local participation (first-time attendees often want to
participate again in the future and may become our next generation of
contributors).
It is also important to rotate locations so that the participation of
new people will increase.
The working environment should enable participants to do their
business without too much outside interference.
2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas
The country hosting the event should not limit the attendance for any
participant. Places in the world where a significant number of
contributors can't go (or get to without doing a lot of work) should
be rejected as candidates to host the IETF.
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria January 2006
The average time that is required to issue a visitor visa suitable
for a short-term visit for IETF business needs to be confirmed. If
this time is not predictable in advance and measurable in a small
number of months, that itself is a barrier to participation.
The IAD must make special considerations if the visa requirements are
so stringent that it is extremely difficult or even impossible for
some participants to attend.
The host country should not have unreasonable visa regulations. That
is, either visas should not be required for most participants, or, if
they are required, they should be obtainable at low cost and
shouldn't take any unnecessary overhead from the organization or the
attendees.
Citizens of certain countries may have difficulty in obtaining visas
for political reasons. The IASA should take all possible steps to
ensure that official governmental support is available for such
people.
Furthermore, explicit requirements and procedures should be worked
out in advance, coordinated with the host country government, and
posted in the IETF meeting web page.
If a particular country refuses to cooperate with the IETF in setting
up procedures for a meeting in their country, this should be posted
on the IETF meetings web page so that this problem can be considered
when future venues are selected.
2.6. Decision and Reporting
The IASA, acting through the IAD and the Secretariat, has the power
of the final decision about meeting venues and hosts. The IASA
should consult with the IETF Chair, the IESG, the IAB and the
volunteer team as necessary.
Despite the need for confidentiality, the IETF should be somehow
informed about generals aspects of the evaluation criteria as to why
a venue/location is or is not adequate. Therefore, some form of open
report should be produced after each venue is evaluated.
3. Logistic Criteria for Venue Selection
The average attendance at an IETF meeting is about 1,300 people.
However, this may reach up to 2,300 people in some circumstances (for
instance, depending on the meeting location).
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria January 2006
Therefore, the suggested venue meeting room capacity is calculated
for about 1,600 people: a meeting space of about 60,000 square feet
or 5,500 square meters.
3.1. Meeting Rooms
The following table shows the approximate needs for meeting rooms and
their expected size, including the usual setup time a few days before
the meeting. This represents only a basic guideline for minimum
requirements.
+------+------+------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Room | Cap | M. | W | T | F | S | S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
+------+------+------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Term | | 464 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| NOC | | 93 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Stor | | 65 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| IETF | | 93 | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Staf | | 65 | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Host | | 65 | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Reg. | | 93 | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Rec. | 900 | 770 | | | | | X | | | | | | |
| Meet | 30t | 63 | | | | | X | | | | | | |
| Meet | 40t | 63 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 100t | 111 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 200t | 204 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 200t | 204 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 300t | 260 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 300t | 260 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 300t | 260 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 500t | 390 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 500t | 390 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 40hs | 195 | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 20hs | 73 | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Brk | | 1391 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Plen | 1500 | 139 | | | | | | | | X | X | | |
+------+------+------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Meeting room requirements
Table 1
Legend:
o Room Name/Usage (Terminal Room, NOC Room, Storage Room, IETF
Office, Staff Lounge, Host Lounge, Registration Area, Reception,
Meeting Room, AM/PM Breaks, Plenary).
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria January 2006
o Room Capacity Requirement (People for Reception, Theater for
Meeting Rooms, Hollow Square for last two meeting rooms). Plenary
is 1500 Theater.
o Room Size in Square Meters.
o Wednesday, Tuesday, Friday, Saturday (meeting setup). Sunday,
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday (meeting). Saturday
(end of meeting).
Obviously, these figures could change from meeting to meeting and are
only a guideline. Indeed, over time the space in the meeting rooms
is becoming too small, and this should be considered in the future.
Adequate planning will take in consideration change in participant's
interests in different work areas, which may create logistic troubles
when configuring each specific meeting agenda. Additional space
allows a more convenient working environment for participants.
Note that some meeting rooms can be used for several functions,
according to the meeting schedule. For example, the plenary meeting
room could be used only when the other sessions aren't underway, and
breaks could be taken in the registration area in the foyer.
For some of the meeting rooms, such as the storage and NOC, multiple
keys should be available so that they can be adequately distributed
to the relevant staff.
All meeting rooms should have a sufficient number of power sockets
and cords for connecting the laptops of about 80% of the expected
attendees.
When conference facilities are used instead of meeting rooms in
hotels, it may be necessary to increase the security when there are
too many entrances. Some additional technical issues may also arise
according to previous experience, such as access to wiring closets or
AV facilities.
Rooms are generally held on a 24-hour basis, and it is highly
recommended that they may be used at any time without restrictions,
except for the time required for cleaning service. In certain
places, this could be a cost issue and may not be convenient. This
may be the case when using conference facilities.
However, from the IETF perspective, the rooms generally do not need
to be available on a 24-hour basis (with the exception of the
terminal room), but removing and reinstalling cabling, access points
or other equipment, should not be required by the venue.
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria January 2006
Regarding the rooms availability and considering the variability of
them, if we define "access" as the ability to enter set up a room
(e.g., to plug in equipment) but not necessarily to occupy it, it
should be possible to get access to the meeting room at least 12
hours prior to holding a meeting in that room.
3.2. Other Venue Considerations
There should be reasonable seating space in open areas outside the
meeting rooms, but not far removed from them, for impromptu hallway
discussions and such. Power outlets should also be available in
those areas. Apart to the terminal room, it may be convenient, if
possible, to have some "quiet" rooms, where people can go to read and
think in peace.
The venue should also provide adequate space for participants to take
refreshments during breaks, in a comfortable way.
The technical team should review the security of the location; for
example, placement of cameras in critical locations should be
considered.
Access to a loading dock and a pallet jack will facilitate the
receipt of network gear and other materials used in the meeting.
The NOC should set up a router on-site before the meeting, in order
to test everything in advance. It is extremely important that the
location of this equipment be accessible for the NOC.
The venue's wiring plan (power and data) should be fully available up
front as part of the evaluation and during the meeting, with
immediate access to control rooms (for example, to make sure that if
a circuit trips, it may be flipped back on almost immediately).
The venue needs to be wheelchair accessible. The host should also be
aware of other possible attendees' handicaps. Some regular attendees
are blind, hypoglycemic, diabetic, or afflicted with any number of
other handicaps. Some attendees may have concerns about the
availability (and even the legality) of the drugs they need. There
are countries in which possession of some drugs (even with a
prescription) might get a person in serious trouble. Some
information from the host in this regard is very welcome.
Weather conditions should not be prohibitive, and the movement of
attendees in likely weather conditions to and from the airport,
venue, and suggested hotels should be considered.
Similarly, the venue's air conditioning or heating capacity should be
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria January 2006
adequate according to the expected attendance and external weather
conditions, including humidity and altitude. The host should
consider the effect when 80% of the attendees use their laptops, each
of which will typically dissipate 150 to 200 watts of heat.
Obviously, this does not mean that the air conditioning or heating
system must be on all the time; on the contrary, thermostats should
work automatically in order to allow a comfortable working
environment.
3.3. Sleeping Rooms
The approximate requirements for sleeping rooms will be a block of
around 5.515 rooms/nights. This is only a generic guideline.
The following table shows the needs for sleeping rooms, including a
setup time a few days before the meeting.
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| 5 | 100 | 450 | 980 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 970 | 770 | 200 | 40 |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Sleeping room requirements
Table 2
3.4. Local Transportation
The location of the venue (and of the main hotels if the venue is not
a big hotel) should allow quick movement of the attendees between the
sleeping and meeting rooms. It is strongly suggested that the
meeting rooms be located in the main hotel (which would have a
minimum capacity of about 60% of the required sleeping rooms).
If the meeting rooms are not located in the same place as the main
block of sleeping rooms, inexpensive public transportation should
allow the movement of 100% of the attendees in less than 30 minutes'
time; meeting timing and usual public transport utilization by the
locals should be considered. This may be the case when the meeting
is being hosted in a convention center instead of at a big hotel
(which may not be available in some locations). This is becoming a
frequent practice for a number of meetings.
Ideally, a number of alternative hotels will be within walking
distance (10 to 15 minutes) of the event venue.
If the IETF has to recommend several "official" hotels, which is
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria January 2006
often the case, especially when the main hotel is insufficient to
house most of the participants, some sort of free-of-charge network
connectivity should be provided at all the official hotels.
3.5. Airport/Wide-Area Transportation
The airport and other means of wide-area transportation need to have
adequate capacity and decent connections.
There should be easy and inexpensive transportation from the nearby
airports to the meeting site. Typically, an airport should be less
than 50 kilometers' distance from the site, and public transportation
and affordable taxi services should be available.
The airport should have a capacity adequate for the number of
attendees arriving and departing; for example, with sufficient number
of scheduled flights, and without bottlenecks due to local
immigration practices.
Traveling to the venue should be possible with a maximum of one
flight hop from a major hub. The airport must have several
international carriers.
Detailed instructions for transportation and of the approximate cost
to get to and from hotels should be made available.
3.6. Food Logistics
The attendees (1,600 to 2,000 people) should be able to get lunch and
dinner, according to the meeting timing, in a maximum of 60 to 90
minutes, including transit time back and forth.
In general, a variety of restaurants will be required within walking
distance, allowing reservation of small and medium tables. Special
requirements (such as vegetarian food, among other choices) must be
satisfied.
As a general consideration, meals must be available when the IETF
needs them. If what this section specifies is not completely
possible, a combination of off-site restaurants and on-site delivery
of good-quality sandwiches (including vegetarian and alternative
choices) could be acceptable.
A list of places that can deliver food to the venue would be helpful.
Places for casual meetings, such as BAR BoFs, should also be
available.
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria January 2006
3.7. Technical and Regulatory Considerations
It should be possible for the IETF participants to rent cell phones.
This is especially relevant for the secretariat/registration/NOC
staff.
It should be possible to know a country's specific technological
regulations up front, especially those that could affect the
provision of the network and equipment often used by the staff and
the attendees. For instance, some countries do not authorize 802.11a
frequencies.
3.8. Health Considerations
Any high risk to health for a high number of participants (such as
malaria, other infections or mandatory health checks at immigration)
should be considered a barrier.
It would be acceptable if the vaccination of the participants did not
adversely affect the attendance. In any case, appropriate
recommendations about vaccinations and mandatory health checks should
be provided ahead the meeting, far enough in advance for the
participants to take appropriate measures.
Obviously, these recommendations are only guidelines for the
attendees to check according to their own specific situations.
Often, health considerations will depend on a number of factors, such
as a traveler's nationality, where the traveler has been recently,
where the traveler intends to go within the destination country, the
length of the stay, and even the mode of transportation into the
destination country.
4. Logistic Risks and Contingencies
Physical safety and security threats at the location must be
evaluated. It should be understood that the attendees come from all
over the world. Any specific threats must be addressed in advance
(hiring guards, etc.).
Appropriate warnings (e.g., about local crime risks) must be given.
An emergency response plan and risk analysis must be in place
throughout the meeting, covering issues such as food intoxication,
medical problems, theft, and indications when something is stolen.
A red-colored paper should be included in each participant's
registration envelope, with details about the evacuation plan. It
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria January 2006
should also include a clear statement regarding the situation in case
of cancellation (for instance, attendee costs versus committed costs
with the host/hotel, retention of meeting fees).
An evaluation of war and terrorism risks and countermeasures is also
required. The location should have no exceptional security
considerations on this regard.
Appropriate insurance should be investigated for IETF meetings.
Adequate contingency plans should be available for those risks.
5. Technical Requirements and Contingencies
IETF meetings have strict requirements concerning to the network that
need to be evaluated altogether which the criteria described in this
document.
Similarly, there are other important technical details which should
also be considered.
A venue can perfectly match all the criteria described in this
document and however be inadequate for deploying the required network
(wired, wireless) and to match other required technical details.
The failure to comply with the technical requirements and have
adequate network/technical contingency plans, is obviously a very
important handicap to accept a venue as a good candidate.
For simplicity and in order to make easy the understanding of non-
technical and technical/network aspects, the later ones are described
in a separate document "IETF Meeting Network and Other Technical
Requirements" [2].
6. Timing and Planning
IETF meeting dates should be planned sufficiently in advance, looking
to the calendars of related meetings (in terms of people attending
them), in order to avoid having meetings clash.
The IETF is a meeting of a considerable size, which often makes it
difficult to find a reasonable venue in a short time. The general
recommendation is that any candidate venue should be explored and
surveyed with a leading time not less than 24 months' time ahead of
the expected meeting dates. Similarly, the final decision for the
selected venue should be made no later than 18 months in advance of
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria January 2006
the meeting's starting date.
Note that network setup and testing often require around one week in
order to ensure an appropriate and quality deployment.
In order to provide the best conditions for meals, the meeting
schedule should be adjusted appropriately according to local habits.
7. Venue Acceptance/Rejection Report
Despite the information provided by the proponent of a given venue
(and before making a final decision about its acceptance or
rejection), the IAD should make an on-site survey for venues that
seem to pass the criteria defined in this document.
The on-site survey report will compare the selection criteria against
the proposal information and the actual on-site findings, describing
possible discrepancies or issues that may need further consideration
(even if this document doesn't include them as part of the criteria
set).
A "site report" for the selected site is important for future
planning. A report is also important for "failed" sites, possibly
describing them in an anonymous way such as "X, Y, and Z were also
considered but had to be postponed or abandoned due to lack of
available space, sponsor agreement, technical considerations, local
conditions, etc.".
8. Process and Openness
In order to demonstrate compliance with the IETF meeting venue
selection criteria, the main information related to a site proposal
will be made publicly available on the IETF web site, excluding some
or all of the negotiation's confidential issues that could be
subjected to the sponsor or host's decision.
A summary of the information has to be made public regardless of
whether the site is finally selected. If agreed to by the proponent,
this summary could be highly detailed, including all the options
being considered (such as a given city and several venues in the same
city). Alternatively, it can be made available without citing the
city, but instead making clear the reasons why it has not been
selected, in order to help future proponents foresee similar issues.
This will not only help the openness of the process but also as
collective knowledge help a better organization and solution of
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria January 2006
issues for future meetings.
In principle, details should not be hidden from the community
regarding the proponent and site options, and this should be the
overall rule for the publication of the details. However, once a
venue is selected, there may be contractual bindings that may not
allow all the negotiation details to be disclosed. Obviously, this
withholding will be restricted to a minimum.
The published information will describe what the proponent offered
and report the on-site survey, which should be done by the IAD before
the final acceptance or rejection of a proposed venue.
9. Security Considerations
This document does not have any protocol-related security
considerations.
10. IANA Considerations
This document does not have any specific IANA considerations.
11. Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the inputs of Adrian Farrel,
Albert Vezza, Andrew McGregor, Avri Doria, Bill Sommerfeld, Brett
Thorson, Brian Carpenter, Daniel Senie, Dave Crocker, Ed Juskevicius,
Eliot Lear, Elwyn Davies, Eric Gray, Eric Rosen, Frank Ellermann,
Gene Gaines, Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Hui Deng, James M. Polo, Jari
Arkko, Jim Martin, Joe Abley, Joel Jaeggli, John Loughney, Julien
Maisonneuve, Karen Odonoghue, Ken Raeburn, Marcia Beaulieu, Marshall
Eubanks, Melinda Shore, Ole Jacobsen, Paul Aitken, Pekka Savola,
Phillip Hallam-Baker, Randy Presuhn, Ray Pelletier, Sam Hartman and
Scott W Brim.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
12.2. Informative References
[1] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF Administrative
Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC 4071, April 2005.
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria January 2006
[2] Palet, J., "IETF Meeting Network and Other Technical
Requirements", January 2006,
<draft-palet-ietf-meeting-network-requirements>.
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria January 2006
Author's Address
Jordi Palet Martinez
Consulintel
Molino de la Navata, 75
La Navata - Galapagar - Madrid
E-28420 - Spain
Phone: +34 91 151 81 99
Fax: +34 91 151 81 98
Email: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria January 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Palet Expires July 20, 2006 [Page 18]
