Internet Engineering Task Force J. Palet Internet-Draft Consulintel Expires: June 3, 2006 November 30, 2005 IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-02.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 June 3, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Abstract This document provides the technical and logistic criteria for the IAD towards the IETF meetings venue selection, which should be considered in order to conclude the relevant contractual negotiations. Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 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 Considerations . . . 5 2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visa Considerations . . . . . . 6 2.6. Decision and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Logistic Criteria for the Venue Selection . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. Meeting Rooms Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Other Venue Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. Sleeping Rooms Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4. Local Transportation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.5. Airport/Wide Area Transport Considerations . . . . . . . . 11 3.6. Food Logistics Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.7. Technical and Regulatory Considerations . . . . . . . . . 12 3.8. Health Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Technical Criteria for the Venue Selection . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. Logistic Risks and Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Technical Risks and Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. Timing and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. Venue Acceptance/Rejection Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. Process and Openness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10. Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20 Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 1. Introduction The IETF meetings are an important part of the IETF process and their hosting and organization must be carefully planned. The adequate planning will allow to ensure that the attendees take advantage of their time at the meeting with a minimum set of guarantees for maximizing their performance, which also avoids unexpected situations and expenses (for example in case of a meeting cancellation, lack of adequate working conditions, lack of reliable connectivity, etc.). This document describes elements for both, logistic and technical criteria for the venue selection, logistic and technical contingency measures, as well as details related to the planning and timing. The criteria depicted in this document, in general, is not a strict list of "must" items, but a list of what needs to be evaluated considering variations and alternative solutions, or combinations of them, that may be available and convenient. At the end is the IAD who will have the final decision and will be accountable for it, and he is consequently responsible for balancing the criteria defined in this document according to the hosting/sponsorship availability. Previous experience shows that things could go wrong when there is a too strict dependence on specific people or equipment and no alternative points of contact or availability is provisioned. Overall contingency is consequently very important. 2. Location and Hosting Criteria A general recommendation has been that the IETF should try to become nearer to the people that contribute. However, the IETF is growing in terms of participants from many countries and although a large number of them are from North America, experience shows that when the meeting is organized somewhere else, fewer than half the participants come from North America. Consequently, to ensure open international access, the IETF should meet outside North America at least one time in three. However, this is a very basic recommendation and the overall selection criteria from this document is the one that will finally qualify the location. When choosing the location, it is important to consider as well, that the surplus coming from the meetings is very important for the sustainment of the IETF. Consequently, each particular meeting overall cost should be considered as part of a more global operation, not just each meeting as a standalone event. For instance, a lower Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 meeting cost (balance among food, facilities, network, meeting fees, host capabilities, sponsorship, attendees cost), may not necessarily mean a lower secretariat cost. At the same time, the overall average participant cost must also be taken in consideration as it may happen that a venue is cheap and generates a high surplus for the IETF, but the average cost for attendees (flights, hotels, other costs), becomes much more expensive and consequently even might generate a drop in the attendance. 2.1. Vacation Destinations Vacations destinations may seem difficult for some people, but this could also be true for other situations always for a few people. At the same time, frequent contributors and/or participants of IETF will often not need to justify their participation regardless of the location. One consideration, specially relevant if a vacations location is chosen, is to avoid places with a very heavy concentration of visitors, together with a very heavy airport overload, which could difficult an easy transit for IETF participants. The point in this cases is to confirm that the additional load caused by IETF participants is not 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 also desires to meet in countries with significant actual or potential participation. Hosting and sponsorship have particular impact both financially and organizationally. Experience shows that when IETF goes to a new country, an eager and committed local host organization is vital. Also, a local host willing to sponsor some facilities for the meeting (without marketing noise) may be of great assistance to the budget in any 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 it is usually the case for other events. The reason for this is that the IETF community is mainly engineers, which in general are not decision makers which may become customers. However, sponsoring IETF offers an important rewarding action from the perspective of the community contribution. As a Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 consequence, this "lower level" rewarding is one more reason to make sure that not all the sponsorship details are openly disseminated, unless clearly authorized by the host, and even do, it can be contra- productive 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. 2.3. Freedom of Participation One more important consideration is the avoidance of locations in countries where some attendees could be disallowed to come in or where freedom of speech is not guaranteed for all he participants. IETF is an open organization and anyone from any region should always be able to participate, so the meeting place can not be a barrier. 2.4. Productivity and Working Environment Considerations 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 which often want to participate again in the future and become our next generation of contributors). The rotation of locations for the increased participation of new people is also very important. The working environment should enable to do our business without too much outside interference. For instance, toughness of visa criteria and/or length of process, excluded contributors are factors. Is expected that the country hosting the IETF meeting should not restrict the participant's 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. Freedom of speech during the meeting must be guaranteed as well. 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 Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 5] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 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. 2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visa Considerations The country hosting the event should not limit the attendance for any participant. Places in the world were a significant number of contributors can't go or if they have to do a lot of work, should be rejected as a candidate to host the IETF. 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 host country should not have unreasonable visa regulations, i.e., either visas are not required for the large majority of participants, or if they are required, they can be obtained at low cost and don't take any unnecessary overhead neither from the organization or the attendees itself. 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, then this should be posted on the IETF meetings web page and this problem be considered in selecting future venues. 2.6. Decision and Reporting An open question is related to who is empowered to take the final decision on any candidate venue/location. Currently it seems that the IASA will need to take the decision about who "takes the decision", being the IAD on this regards, just the official point of contact, consulting the IETF chair and the IASA itself. Probably Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 6] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 also the secretariat and the volunteer team which has been around without a formal position on this, should be consulted. Despite the need for a certain degree of confidentiality, the evaluation of the criteria should allow to be aware of the main issues why a venue/location is adequate or is not, and consequently some form of open report should be produced after each venue evaluation. 3. Logistic Criteria for the Venue Selection The average attendance to an IETF meeting is about 1.300 people, however it may span up to 2.300 people in some circumstances (for instance, depending on the meeting location). Considering this, the suggested venue meeting room capacity is calculated for about 1.600 people, including meeting space of about 60.000/5.500 square feets/meters. 3.1. Meeting Rooms Considerations The following table shows the approximate needs for meeting rooms and their expected size including a few days before the meeting, considering the usual setup time. This represents only a basic guideline for minimum requirements, and needs to be taken in the context of the IETF progress, for example considering the participants interest in different work areas, which may create logistic problems when configuring each specific meeting agenda, in the case that this table is taken a strict rule. Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 7] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 +------+------+-------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 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 | | 1.391 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | | | Plen | 1500 | 139 | | | | | | | | X | X | | | +------+------+-------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ Meeting Rooms Requirements Table 1 As already indicated above, obviously those figures could change from meeting to meeting and are only an orientation. Indeed, most of the time the space in the meeting rooms is becoming short and it this should be further considered in the future, including additional space to allow a more convenient working environment for the participants. Note that some of the meeting rooms can be used for several functions, according to the meeting schedule, for example the plenary meeting room is used only when the rest of the sessions aren't occurring, breaks and registration area in the foyer, etc. For some of the meeting rooms, such as the storage and NOC, it should be possible to have multiple keys so they can be adequately distributed to the relevant staff. All the meeting rooms should be provided with sufficient number of Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 8] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 power sockets and cords for connecting the laptops of about 80% of the expected attendees. The rooms generally are hold in a 24 hours basis, and is highly recommended the possibility to use them at any time w/o restrictions, except for the required timing of the cleaning service. In certain places this could be a cost issue and it may be not convenient. This may be the case when using conference facilities instead of meeting rooms in hotels. In those cases, 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, AV facilities, etc. However, from the IETF perspective, the rooms generally do not need to be available in 24 hours basis (with the exception of the terminal room), but removing and reinstalling cabling, access points, other equipment, etc., should not be required by the venue. Regarding the rooms availability and considering the variability of them, if we define access as ability to enter the room to setup the AP or plug in a switch to leave in a corner, but not necessarily to enter the room to occupy it, it should be possible to get access to the meeting room at least 12 hours prior to a meeting being held in that room. 3.2. Other Venue Considerations There should be reasonable seating space in open areas outside of the meeting rooms, but not far removed from them, for impromptu hallway discussions and such. Is also expected that power outlets are available in those areas. The venue should also take in consideration the adequate space required to correctly handle the provision of refreshment during the breaks, in a comfortable way for the participants. A review by the technical team of the security of the location would be helpful, for example considering the existence of cameras in critical locations. Access to the dock and a pallet jack is also very helpful, in order to facilitate the reception of the network gear and other materials used in the meeting. The NOC should provision to setup a router on-site before the meeting, in order to test everything well in advance. It is an extremely important requirement that the location of this equipment Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 9] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 is accesible for the NOC. The venue 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 in order to make sure that if a circuit does trip, is possible to flip it back on almost immediately. The venue needs to be wheelchair accessible. Just as a side information, the host should be aware also about other possible variety of attendees handicaps; for example, some of the regular attendees are blind, hypoglycemic, diabetic, or afflicted with any number of other handicaps. One more example is that some attendees may have concerns about availability (and even legality) of the drugs they need (for instance, there are countries in which possession of some drugs - even with a prescription - might get you in a serious trouble). Some information from the host, on this regard, is very welcome. It is expected that the weather conditions are reasonable considering the location of the airport, venue and suggested hotels and expected attendees movement across them. Similarly, the venue air-conditioning and/or heating capacity should be adequate according to the expected attendance and external weather conditions, including humidity and location altitude. The host should take note of the side effect of 80% of the attendees using their laptops, which typically will dissipate 150-200 watts of heat. Obviously this does not mean that the air-conditioning/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 Considerations Furthermore, the approximate requirements for sleeping rooms will be a block of around 5.515 rooms/nights. Once more, this is only a generic guideline and as such should be noted. The following table shows the needs for sleeping rooms including a few days before the meeting. Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 10] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | 5 | 100 | 450 | 980 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 970 | 770 | 200 | 40 | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Sleeping Rooms Requirements Table 2 3.4. Local Transportation Considerations The location of the venue (and the main hotel/s in case the venue is not a big hotel already) should be such that allows a quick movement of the attendees between the sleeping and the meeting rooms. It is strongly suggested that the meeting rooms are in fact located in the main hotel (which 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 transport means should allow the movement of 100% of the attendees in less than 30 minutes, considering the meeting timing and usual public transport utilization by the locals. This may be the case when the meeting is hosted in a convention center instead of a big hotel, which may not be available in some locations, and is becoming a frequent practice for a number of similar meetings. The ideal situation is that a number of alternative hotels are at walking distance (10-15 minutes) from the event venue. If there is a need for several "official" hotels to be choosen as IETF recommendations, which often is the case, specially when the main one is insufficient to host most of the participants, some sort of free of charge connectivity should be made at all the official hotels. 3.5. Airport/Wide Area Transport Considerations The airport and/or other wide area transport means need to have adequate capacity and decent connections. It is expected that there's easy and inexpensive 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. The airport should have adequate capacity considering the number of Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 11] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 expected attendees arriving and departing, for example with sufficient number of scheduled flights and avoiding bottlenecks due to local immigration practices. 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. Detailed instructions for the transportation and approximate cost to get to and from the hotels should be made available. 3.6. Food Logistics Considerations The attendees (1.600-2.000) should be able to get food for lunch and dinner, according to the meeting timing, in a maximum of 60-90 minutes, including the transit time (back and forth). In general, a requirement will be to have a variety of restaurants within walking distance, allowing reservation of small and medium tables. Special requirements (such as vegetarian food, others choices) must be satisfied. As a general consideration, we can state that meals must be available when IETF needs them. If what this section specifies is not completely possible, a combination of this with the 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. 3.7. Technical and Regulatory Considerations It should be possible to rent cell phones for the IETF participants. This is specially relevant for the secretariat/registration/NOC staff. It should be possible to know up-front specific regulations of the country related to different technological aspects which could affect the provision of the network and equipment often used by the staff and the attendees, for instance the wireless technology which is authorized (it has been noticed that some countries, for example, did not authorize 802.11a frequencies by default). 3.8. Health Considerations It should be considered as a handicap if there is any high risk of Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 12] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 health impact for a high number of participants (such as malaria or other infections or mandatory health checks at immigration). This would be acceptable if the vaccination of the participants is not going to impact the attendance and in any case, appropriate recommendations about vaccinations and mandatory health checks should be provided ahead the meeting, in advance enough for the participants to take appropriate measures. Obviously those recommendations are only guidelines for the attendees to check with their own specific situation, because often it will depend on a number of factors such as traveler's nationality, where the traveler has recently been, 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. Technical Criteria for the Venue Selection In order to accommodate the IETF meeting with technical guarantees of successful working capabilities for the attendees, the following technical issues should be considered: This is only a list, need some work. TBD. o Evaluation of wireless voice communication ("Walkie Talkies" or hand held radios). In some cases the secretariat can bring their own equipment, but in some occasions is required to be rented from the hotel. o Wired link required for the registration desk/secretariat. o Telecommunications room availability o A mechanism to having access 24 hours a day, ahead of the meeting. o Access to the wiring, what can be uses, what not. o Some facilities have no wiring. o Appropriate wiring plan (power and data). o Some facilities have great network access, others nothing (no fiber links up to the venue). How much can be provisioned and in what time. o Need to know the existing infrastructure and what can be done. Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 13] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 o Roof access, in case a WLAN link is required. o If there is already a WLAN in the building can be turned off ?. o Existing infrastructure: fiber, UTP/distances o Feasibility/facility to setup new cables (fiber/UTP) o Pipe (of pipe and drape) needs to be evaluated. Putting the access points on something to raise them above the heads of the people is useful. Acquiring the pipes, bases and in some cases sand bags is an extra item to be considered, as many are needed for each access point. o Electrical power capacity o 24 hours power. Capacity and special distribution issues. Evaluate the cost of extra. o Highly reliable Internet link and BW o 20-25 Mbits, today, of symmetric is a minimum requirement. Backup needed. o Multihoming seems to be to strong requirement and will much depend on the hosts capabilities, however it can be stated: Multiple physical paths are recommended. o Facilities for AV, room dimensions for screens (high/wide) o IPv4 unicast o DNS o DHCP o FTP o WWW o SAMBA (local mirror of ID's) o IPv4 multicast: is still needed today ? o IPv6 unicast o IDS, other security issues Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 14] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 o No content filtering or ACLs. o Managed devices across the entire network ? o Test the network under heavy load o Printers o NOC - primary and backup contacts for all the issues/topics o Provide stats and info on network status o WLAN expertise and debugging/monitoring o Document what can be wrong with the WLAN in advance to inform users - FAQ to users o Make the wired network production quality, WLAN experimental ? o Wires to all essential services (e.g. audiocast, chairs, presenter, jabber scribe) o White board for the NOC, in visible place 5. Logistic Risks and Contingencies 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.). 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, 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 war and terrorism risk and measures is also required. The location should have no exceptional security considerations on this regard. Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 15] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 Appropriate insurance should be investigated for IETF meetings. Adequate contingency plans should be available for those risks. 6. Technical Risks and Contingencies TBD. 7. Timing and Planning IETF meeting dates should be planned sufficiently ahead, looking to the calendars of other related meetings (in terms of people attending them), in order to avoid meetings clashing among them. The IETF is a meeting of a considerable size, which makes often 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 shorter than 24 months ahead the expected meeting dates. Similarly the final decision for the selected venue should be done non later than 18 months in advance to the meeting starting date. It is especially relevant also to consider that the network setup and testing often require around one week time frame in order to ensure an appropriate and quality deployment. 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. 8. Venue Acceptance/Rejection Report Despite the information provided by the proponent of a given venue, the IAD should, before taking a final decision about the acceptance or rejection of a given proposed venue, make an on-site survey for those 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 which may need further considerations even if they aren't directly described as part of the criteria set out-coming from this document. A "site report" for the selected site is important for future planning. Similarly in the case of "failed" site decisions, possibly Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 16] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 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.". 9. Process and Openness In order to demonstrate the compliance with the IETF meeting venue selection criteria, the main information related to the proposal of a site will be made publicly available in the IETF web site, considering the exclusion of some/all of the negotiation confidential issues which could be subjected to the sponsor/hosts decision. A summary of the information need to be made public regardless of the site being finally selected or not. If agreed by the proponent, it could be very complete, including all the options being considered, such as a given city and several venues in the same city, and so on. Alternatively, it can be made available not citing the city, but instead making clear the reasons why it has not been selected, in order to help future proponents to foresee similar issues. This will not only help the openness of the process but also as collective knowledge helping into a better organization and solution of issues for future meetings. In principle there should not be hidden details to the community regarding the proponent and site options and that should be the overall rule for the publication of the details. However, once a venue is selected, there may be contractual bindings which may not allow to disclose all the negotiation details, which obviously will be restricted to a minimum. The published information will describe what was offered by the proponent, as well as the report about the on-site survey which should be done by the IAD before the final acceptance/rejection of a given proposed venue. 10. Other Issues Further elaboration is required (TBD) ? 11. Conclusions TBD. Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 17] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 12. Security Considerations This document doesn't have any protocol-related security considerations. 13. IANA Considerations This document doesn't have any specific IANA considerations. 14. 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. 15. References 15.1. Normative References 15.2. Informative References [1] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC 4071, April 2005. Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 18] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 Author's Address Jordi Palet Martinez Consulintel San Jose Artesano, 1 Alcobendas - Madrid E-28108 - Spain Phone: +34 91 151 81 99 Fax: +34 91 151 81 98 Email: jordi.palet@consulintel.es Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 19] Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005 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 (2005). 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 June 3, 2006 [Page 20]