This draft is well-written and ready for publication once the following issues are considered:

* Section 2 has the following statement:

   While satisfation was high right after the meetinng [_107-FEEDBACK],
   participants later indicated in mailing discussion that the period of
   intensive interims had a greater impact on their calendar than a
   single plenary meeting week, and in some meeting.

That only tells half of the story, and embeds a bias towards highly-active standards people who wish to sit in on many meetings. It ignores that interims may be more suitable for a given group's participants.

That's because interims can be scheduled in a more flexible way, because the Chairs can poll the group and find times that work for those who intend to participate, rather than being assigned a 1-hour slot in a 6-hour window that may or may not work for those in the group.

So, I'd recommend qualifying "participants" with "some", and adding the countering factor explained above.

* Section 3.1 contains a table recommending timezones. It should be noted that changes in Daylight Savings practices (such as those that have passed the US Senate) might necessitate adjustments.

* Likewise, that table makes assumptions about the people who attend IETF meetings. For example, the proposed times aren't suitable for people in India, because two of the meeting times have them up in the middle of the night, rather than one.

Cheers,