Subject: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:29:40 +0200

Hi all,

I've not seen the announcement yet, but it has been published:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection
-criteria-00.txt

I hope we have a lot of comments and constructive inputs !

Remember, this document defines WHERE our next meeting will happen and under
what conditions those venues are selected, so is important for all of us,
right ?

Regards,
Jordi

************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Information available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:23:23 +0200

On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 12:29:40AM +0200,
 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 37 lines which said:

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-00.txt

Please read the FAQ first: you should have send it to the RFC editor
only (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcfaq.html)

17) How can I submit an April 1st RFC?

    April 1st submissions are the only RFCs-to-be which do not need to
    be published as an internet-draft. These entries should be sent
    directly to the RFC Editor. We appreicate receiving all entries at
    least 2 weeks prior to April 1st so that the RFC Editor team has
    time to review all of the documents and prepare those that we
    decide to publish.

The section "Logistic Risks/Contingencies" is specially ridiculous.

Also, if you intended to be serious, read
http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/ietf/2005-01/msg00035.html and
http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/ietf/2005-01/msg00039.html first.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:15:14 +0200

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-00.txt

(Now -01)

Next drafts : "How to select appropriate dining room for a Meeting",
"IETF bathroom requirements", ...

> The airport should be of such capacity to accommodate 60% of the
> attendees arriving and departing on the same day, in addition to the
> usual number of passengers.

IETF MUST NOT hold a meeting in a location where the international
airport is not IETF-compliant and open-standards-based.

> The traveling to the venue location should be possible with a
> maximum of one flight hop from a major hub.  The airport must have a
> diversity of international carriers.

The location MUST be accessible to IETF members with a TTL of 1.

> If there is already a WLAN in the building can be turned off

The IETF MUST NOT accept competing WLAN access.

> Appropriate warnings (e.g. about local crime risks) must be given.

The IETF MUST NOT hold meetings in Baghdad or New Orleans for the
foreseeable future.

Appropriate warnings about local risks of hurricanes, flooding,
tsunami or earthquakes must be given.

[Good bye, California.]

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:44:27 +0200

Ops ... Sorry, yes is -01:

-criteria-01.txt

Regards,
Jordi

> De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:29:40 +0200
> Para: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Conversación: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria
> Asunto: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria
> 
> Hi all,
>

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:44:41 +0200

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:16:07 +0300

Everyone seems to be pointing to the wrong version
of the document. Here's the correct URL:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-01.txt

The -01 version is a major improvement from the initial
ocument, I at least found it useful. Some comments below,
however:

>   Meals must be available when IETF needs
>   them.  If this is not possible, a combination of this with the
>   delivering of good quality sandwiches (including vegetarian and
>   alternative choices) on-site could be acceptable.
>
I think we had a good experience in Paris from adjusting
our schedules to the local style. I would suggest softening
the above a bit.

>   Is expected that the nearby airport is located no more than 50
>   Kilometers from the main hotels, and again inexpensive public
>   transportation is available.
>
>   The traveling to the venue location should be possible with a maximum
>   of one flight hop from a major hub.  The airport must have a
The beginning of the document is very clear that there's
a large number of criteria and that they should be considered
together, rather than blindly following them as rules. The
above items should probably be written in a slightly less
strict style, e.g., "It is expected that there's easy transportation
from the nearby airports to the meeting site. Typically
this implies an airport under 50 kilometer's distance and
the availability of public transportation and/or affordable
taxi services, depending on local situation."

Also, airport capacity is usually not the bottleneck from
what I can see, its mostly (a) sufficient number of scheduled
flights and (b) local immigration practises.

>4.  Technical criteria for the venue selection
>
It seems that some of this is related to the meeting site
itself and some to the set up the host, secretariat, and
volunteers arrange on the site. For instance, wiring vs.
dhcp. Might be useful to separate these.

>   Physical safety and security threats at the location must be
>   evaluated, understanding that the attendees come from all over the
>   world.  Any specific threats must be addressed in advance (hiring
>   guards, etc.).
>
>   An emergency response plan and risk analysis must be in place
>   throughout the meeting, covering issues such as food intoxication,
>   medical problems, indications when something is stolen, etc.
>
>   A red colored paper should be included in the participants
>   registration envelope with details about the evacuation plan.  It
>   should also include a clear statement regarding the situation in case
>   of cancelation (for instance, attendee costs versus committed costs
>   with the host/hotel, retention of meeting fees, etc.).
>
>   An evaluation of was and terrorism risk and measures is also
>   required.  The location should have no exceptional security
>   considerations on this regard.
>
>   Appropriate insurance should be investigated for IETF meetings.
>  
>
This is an overkill. I think its useful to consider security
as a factor when deciding the meeting site (i.e., no Baghdad
IETF.) But I think we can rely on people finding out what
the local issues are mostly on their own just like other
travellers do, and I'm sure if there's a specific issue this
will be talked about in the IETF discussion list. An evacuation
chart might be useful, but in many cases this would essentially
be the meeting site map that we get anyway, as long as
it has some clearly marked "exit" symbols. As for the
insurance, the participants surely have insurance for
their own purposes. Not sure if we need more than that.
The secretariat needs to cover their employees, of course.
Cancellation: ietf registration and hotel registration are
handling this already adequately, I think.

>9.  Process and Openness
I'd like to see a "site report" for the selected site, but
I'm not sure we can really publish much about the
"failed" site decisions. We could say "X, Y, and Z were
also considered but had to be postponed or abandoned
due to lack of available space, sponsor agreement, and
local conditions".

--Jari

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:39:18 +0200

Excuse me Stéphane, but I do not find these comments constructive.
Anyone planning an international meeting for 1000+ people has
to take a great many things seriously that you seem to think
are amusing. We had some serious security problems in Paris,
for example.

    Brian

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:48:49 +0100

> are amusing. We had some serious security problems in Paris,

I agree.  The thing is, my personal view is that one of the best places to
get work done is Minneapolis, but if you suggested that as a venue out of 
the blue, most people would think you were a few cans short of a six pack.

We should be very open minded in venues to consider, and try to capture
what it is about those venues that seem to work in the requirements doc.

The fact that Minneapolis was 4 degrees F last time I was there didn't
really matter.  In fact coming from a country that now rarely sees snow
it was actually very enjoyable :)

Tim

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:58:32 -0400

Hi,

I think there needs to be some mention of requirements such as:

- MUST NOT be held in a country whose visa requirements are so  
stringent as to make it impossible or even extremely difficult for  
some participant to attend.

- MUST NOT be held in a country with restrictions on freedom of  
expression, especially if these extend to the blocking of web sites  
or any other censuring of personal communications.

- MUST NOT be held in a country were local participants would be  
under pressure to support national technical policies on threat of  
imprisonment or other punitive actions, for their opinions.

- MUST NOT be held in a country were local participants would need  
government approval to attend.

a.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:18:58 -0400

> government approval to attend.

Those are great criteria.  I agree that we need to focus on
actual impediments to participation rather than personal
preferences.

Melinda

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:40:53 -0700 (PDT)

The visa requirements one would probably prevent us from meeting in the 
US, some will consider this a "feature" :-)

The "restrictions on freedom of expression" is a little more tricky and
one could argue that the IETF should not be in the business of trying to
change policy at that level. China comes to mind as a place we could not
go by this rule, but a lot of people seem to belive that "constructive
engagement" is more successful than boycott.

Singapore is often held up as a place with lots of restrictions and rules, 
but for attending a conference or meeting the rules are frankly "invisible"
for most practical purposes.

This is a slippery slope indeed. Countries that ban crypto....

Should we really go down this path?

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen 
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Academic Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:44:13 -0400

Dear Avi;

I like these (although the devil will be in the details, like how to 
define "extremely difficult).

A nit  :

1,$s/were/where/

Regards
Marshall

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:58:32 -0400

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:19:43 +0300

I think we should expect a working environment that
enables us to do our business withour too much hassle.
For instance, toughness of visa criteria and/or length
of process, excluded contributors are factors. I wouldn't
consider just the need to apply for a visa as a show
stopper, however.  The difficult part is that there's always
some issues, so we need to decide how much trouble
we can live with. My take is that the rotation of locations
solves much of the problem. Maybe we could even more
of that than we do now. Other than that, we need
to monitor the number of folks who can not come due
to length of process or refusal to grant visas.

Other erquirements: Ability to VPN/SSH back home is needed.
Need to be able to discuss freely within the meeting (including,
e.g., discussion of security vulnerabilities). Unrestricted
local participation is needed too, imho, because one of
the reasons that we go to different places is to attract
more participants.

Freedom of expression is another matter, and would be slippery
slope indeed. I think in most cases we would be better off
being open and constructive, and helping more people understand
what our views are than to refuse contact.

--Jari

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:38:29 -0400

> what our views are than to refuse contact.

I agree, and that is why I tired to include specific issues, though  
admit that part needs greater specificity.  I think the slippery  
slope can be avoided by designating specific acts that make a site  
unacceptable.

One can safely argue that everywhere censures something, however,  
some well known practices are more serious then others.  Blocked  
sites, redirected dns, registration and arrest of bloggers etc    
stand out as things that can be stated specifically and not subject  
to much interpretation (ok, as anyone who knows me knows, i believe  
everything is subject to some degree of interpretation).

As for being open and constructive, I agree that in principle this is  
a good goal.  however, i beleive it is a goal that exists on its own  
slippery slope, a slope that ends in appeasement and acquiescence to  
practices we would prefer not to support.  I think a better path to  
openness is to set a good example and to invite all to participate  
and to make it easy for them to participate (ref. the visa rules - i  
also advocate subsidized attendance fees - but that is another issue).

a.

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:39:32 -0400

> some participant to attend.

An important factor worth stressing, IMHO, is the time required to apply
for & issue a visitor visa suitable for a short-term visit.  If the time
required isn't predictable in advance and measureable in small numbers
of months, that itself is a barrier to participation.
			
But I might back off on a hair on the phrasing -- "several
participants"?

Let's be realistic -- we're talking about government bureaucracy here. 
Is there any country out there which doesn't occasionally "randomly"
deny or significantly delay granting a visitor visa?  A single incident
ought not to preclude us from returning.  A pattern of exclusion, on the
other hand, would be a matter of concern.

						- Bill

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:06:11 -0400

Hi,

It certainly makes sense to reword it for a pattern of difficulty or  
exclusion.

On any of these criteria, since this is the IETF, it might make sense  
to subject them to rough consensus criteria.  I.e a country that is  
being considered for a future meeting could be vetted on the IETF list.

Or they could be rephrased as guidelines to the IAD and IAOC assuming  
that they could use a reasonable participant criteria (similar to the  
reasonable man rule used in jurisprudence) for judging whether sites  
meet these criteria, with the IETF ready to comment once they make  
their recommendations.

a.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:54:10 -0700

> It certainly makes sense to reword it for a pattern of difficulty or 

and the method of making objective, verifiable assessments that this 
pattern exists will be...?

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:58:31 -0700

> being considered for a future meeting could be vetted on the IETF list.

Sorry.  As usual, I hit 'send' too quickly and thereby entirely missed 
the real point I meant to make:

Getting the IETF community involved in rounds of debate about acceptable 
national policies is certain be be unproductive and likely to be 
destructive. We already have countries upset with us for making 
decisions based on solid engineering preferences.  What is likely to be 
the result of our pretending to be able to make decision on politically 
acceptable national behavior?

On the other hand, the nice thing about pursuing a rough consensus 
community decision is that it does not matter what basis each of us 
uses.  We do not need debate.  We simply need voices saying yay or nay.

d/

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:15:35 -0400

> pattern exists will be...?

Don't even try.  Choose people who listen to you, give them your
requirements and desires, and give them the power to evaluate the
tradeoffs on the behalf of the whole group.

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:31:47 -0400

>government approval to attend.

Reading through this list, it looks to me like Canada would be a good 
choice. For variety, some could be in the east, some in the west, 
some in the center. The USA, at least at present, fails to meet some 
of the criteria listed above and perhaps should no longer be on the 
list of countries in which to host meetings. We certainly have 
friends who refuse to travel here ot the US given present policies.

Of all the north american locales where I've attended IETF or NANOG 
meetings, I have to say Minneapolis was outstanding, as was Montreal. 
Minneapolis in March particularly was ideal. I was surprised to find 
a great city with widely varied food options, great awareness and of 
special diets (vegetarian/vegan), no major tourist draw to turn the 
trip to the meeting into an excuse for a vacation. Montreal in winter 
time similarly discourages the vacation excuse syndrome, while 
providing a good locale with great services.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:59:00 -0400

>>>>> "Avri" == Avri Doria <[email-masked]> writes:

    Avri> - MUST NOT be held in a country whose visa requirements are
    Avri> so stringent as to make it impossible or even extremely
    Avri> difficult for some participant to attend.

I think this is too strict.  I think visa criteria are an issue, but
saying that visa criteria prevent one participant from attending seems
way too strict.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:50:33 -0700 (PDT)

Sam,

I think Avri intended to say that there are SOME countries in the world
where visa requirements for citizens of some OTHER countries in the world
are so restrictive or slow to process or expensive etc, that it makes it
virtually impossible to travel to confereces etc. To list this completely
would require a large matrix indeed. As a citizen of Norway for example, I
can visit Japan as often as I want more or less and stay 90 days each time
without any visa. But citizens of India do not enjoy such a priviledge,
they DO need a visa and it takes time to get it. This stuff also changes
over time. Last time I went to Taiwan (this August) I needed no visa, but
the time before (2003) I did, whereas people from Sweden were allowed in
without a visa in those days (I cannot imagine why :-). Some countries
also seem to practice "mutual punishment" when it comes to visa
requirements: "you require us to get a visa for your country, so we will
require the same of you".

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:50:42 +0200

> saying that visa criteria prevent one participant from attending seems

More generally, any non-trivial set of MUST NOTs is going to be
impossible to satisfy simultaneously. I really don't see how we can
go further than should/should not, in practical reality.

    Brian

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:41:47 -0400

> some participant to attend.

If adopted and enforced as written, this restriction would make it  
impossible to meet in any country in the world.

Perhaps you have in mind floating meetings in international waters,  
or zero-g excursions into orbit?

Joe

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:43:37 +0900

I did not mean to say one participant, i meant some participants  
(though i dropped the 's') and of course accept that that should be a  
number larger then 3.

And I do accept the idea that many of these are subjective and best  
determined by a trusted entity (IAD/IAOC) and vetted by the community.

a.

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:48:40 +0900

Hi,

I can agree with SHOULD and SHOULD NOT, the only problem i had in  
writing it that way is i could not meet the specification requirement  
for specifying the conditions under which the requirement would not  
apply.  I did not want to careless create loopholes.

My main concern is that these issues be a formal requirement of the  
community's decision in where we meet.  And that they be taken  
seriously.

a.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 06:25:15 +0200

Avri Doria wrote:
> community's decision in where we meet.  And that they be taken seriously.
> 

Forgive me Avri and Jordi, but why?

I've been going to IETF meetings since 1988 and I really can't remember 
the Secretariat fouling it up.  Did I miss a problem?  Could people not 
get to France or Minnesota?  Is this something we really need to do?

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:48:09 +0200

They are certainly points to be taken seriously, IMHO.

In fact, I'd be interested in hearing from people who have
been unable to travel to IETF meetings due to visa refusals.
If people who have had this problem write to me privately,
I will anonymize and summarize the data.

     Brian

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:09:14 +0200

I know some specific country/island which has been banned by US, and is an
easy one ...

I think is also important to know who has got so many (visa) *difficulties*
that has abandoned the idea to come to an IETF or has been close to do so.

By the way, I'm lurking silently all the comments. My idea is to try to
summarize everything probably at the end of the week.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
> Organización: IBM
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:48:09 +0200
> Para: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
> CC: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria
>

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:42:33 -0700

Hi Jari,

Just a couple of questions/clarifications here (rest in separate threads).

Regarding the meals, the point is to make sure that the people have a place
to have it, even if combined with on-site delivered food. I'm not sure if
the document should talk about the exact schedule, but for sure we need
something like:

"In order to provide the best conditions for the meals and according to
previous experience, the meeting schedule should be appropriately adjusted
to the local habits".

Regarding to insurance, the point here is that it seems never has been done
or at least documented any required insurance, not as individuals, but as
the meeting organization itself. This is extremely important to avoid any
kind of responsibilities from the IETF organization and could change from
country to country. So is important to have a explicit warning to be
considered by each host/IETF responsible people (IAD/chair/others).

I've never seen the evacuation plan in a conference, and probably is there,
but if we haven't seen it, it will be worth to avoid risks having it
conveniently delivered to all the participants (with the registration
package seems to be the most appropriate way).

Regarding the cancellation, the document doesn't say if it is being done
correctly or not, but is not documented and I think is an important point.
What happens if there is any kind of reason which forces to cancel a
meeting. Are the fees being reimbursed or not ? Are the attendees
compensated for the non-refundable flights, etc.

If you believe all this is not clear in the document, please let me know so
I can work out some additional text to make sure is properly understood.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:16:07 +0300
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:46:50 -0700

Hi Avri,

While I personally agree with all this, I'm not sure we should go so far as
strict MUST NOT ...

Reading the rest of the comments, I think the conclusions are something like
(not necessarily contiguous text in a single place in the document, so needs
to be coherently integrated):

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 (newbies which
often want to participate again in the future and become our next generation
of contributors).

The working environment should enable to do our business without too much
hassle. For instance, toughness of visa criteria and/or length of process,
excluded contributors are factors.

The average time required to apply for & issue a visitor visa suitable for a
short-term visit for the IETF business need to confirmed. If is not
predictable in advance and measurable in small numbers of months, that
itself is a barrier to participation to be seriously considered, together
with the cost of that process. Special considerations must be made by the
IAD in case the visa requirements are so stringent as to make it impossible
or even extremely difficult for some participants to attend.

The rotation of locations for the increased participation of new people is
also very important.

Is expected that the country hosting the IETF meeting should not restrict
the participants freedom of expression, for example by blocking web sites or
redirecting dns which may be required during the meeting for usual
participants business, censoring of personal communications, blocking of
VPN/SSH and other similar practices.

It is also a barrier to be seriously considered if local participants
attending the IETF could be under pressure to support national technical
policies on threat of imprisonment or other punitive actions, for their
opinions.

Finally, it should be possible for local participants to attend the meeting
without any special government approval. Otherwise, the venue does not
support the increased local participation, which is one of the goals for
this criteria.

Comments ?

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:58:32 -0400