idnits 2.17.1 draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (July 6, 2016) is 2844 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'Important' is mentioned on line 381, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Mandatory' is mentioned on line 478, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Desired' is mentioned on line 483, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'I-D.barnes-healthy-food' is defined on line 677, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-krishnan-ietf-meeting-policy-00 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4071 (Obsoleted by RFC 8711) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4371 (Obsoleted by RFC 8714) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7691 (Obsoleted by RFC 8711) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IAOC F. Baker, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 4 Intended status: Best Current Practice July 6, 2016 5 Expires: January 7, 2017 7 IAOC Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process 8 draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-03 10 Abstract 12 This documents the IAOC's IETF Meeting Venue Selection Process from 13 the perspective of its goals and thought processes. It points to 14 additional process documents on the IAOC Web Site that go into 15 further detail and are subject to change with experience. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2017. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 2. Meeting Selection Participants and Responsibilities . . . . . 3 54 2.1. The IETF Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 2.2. IESG and IETF Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 2.3. The Internet Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 2.4. IETF Administrative Oversight Committee . . . . . . . . . 4 58 2.5. IETF Administrative Support Activity . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 2.6. IETF Administrative Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 2.7. IAOC Meeting Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 3. Venue Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 3.1. Venue Selection Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 3.2. Venue Selection Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 3.3. Venue Selection Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 3.3.1. Venue City Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 3.3.2. Basic Venue Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 3.3.3. Technical Services and Operations Criteria . . . . . 10 68 3.3.4. Lodging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 3.3.5. Food and Beverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 3.4. Non-criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 3.5. Venue Selection Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 3.6. Experience Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 73 4. Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 74 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 75 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 7. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 77 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 78 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 79 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 80 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 81 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 82 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 83 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 85 1. Introduction 87 This document describes the IETF Meeting Venue Selection Process from 88 the perspective of goals and thought processes. Following IETF 94 89 and at IETF 95 there was a discussion on the IETF list of the 90 selection process and criteria for IETF meetings. In response to 91 that discussion, the IAOC and the IAOC Meetings Committee took it 92 upon themselves to more publicly document its process and involve 93 community input. 95 This document describes the objectives and principles behind the 96 venue selection process. It also discusses the actual selection 97 process to one level of detail, and points to working documents used 98 in execution. 100 1.1. Requirements Language 102 Requirements called out in this document are identified as either 103 "mandatory" or "desired", and considerations are tagged as 104 "Important" or "Would be nice". For clarity, the terms are defined 105 here: 107 Mandatory: If this requirement cannot be met, a location under 108 consideration is unacceptable. We walk away. 110 Desired: We would very much like to meet this requirement, but have 111 frequently been unable to. The fact that we could not meet it is 112 considered in comparison to other sites. 114 Important: Can be a make-or-break consideration, but can also be 115 traded off against other considerations. 117 Would be nice: Not make-or-break, but warrants additional 118 consideration if found to be true. 120 2. Meeting Selection Participants and Responsibilities 122 The formal structure of IETF administrative support functions is 123 documented in BCP 101 [RFC4071][RFC4371][RFC7691]. The reader is 124 expected to be familiar with the entities and roles defined by that 125 document, in particular for the IASA, ISOC, IAOC and IAD. This 126 section covers the meeting selection related roles of these and other 127 parties that participate in the process. Note that roles beyond 128 meeting selection, e.g., actually running and reporting on meetings, 129 are outside the scope of this document. 131 2.1. The IETF Community 133 While somewhat obvious to most, it is important to note that IETF 134 meetings serve all those who contribute to the development of IETF 135 RFCs. This includes those who attend meetings, from newcomer to 136 frequent attendee, to those who participate remotely, and to those 137 who don't attend but contribute to new RFCs. Potential new 138 contributors are also considered in the process. 140 IETF consensus with respect to the meeting venue selection process is 141 judged via standard IETF process and not by any other means, e.g., 142 surveys. Surveys are used to gather information related to meeting 143 venues, but not to measure consensus. 145 2.2. IESG and IETF Chair 147 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is a group comprised 148 of the IETF Area Directors and the IETF Chair. The IESG is 149 responsible for the management, along with the IAB, of the IETF, and 150 is the standards approval board for the IETF, as described in BCP9 151 [RFC2026]. This means that the IESG sets high level policies related 152 to, among other things, meeting venues. The IETF Chair is a member 153 of the IESG who, among other things, relays policies to the IAOC. 154 The IETF Chair is also a member of the IAOC. 156 2.3. The Internet Society 158 The Internet Society (ISOC) executes all venue contracts on behalf of 159 the IETF at the request of the IAOC; solicits meeting sponsorships; 160 collects all meeting-related revenues, including registration fees, 161 sponsorships, hotel commissions, and other miscellaneous revenues. 162 ISOC also provides accounting services, such as invoicing and monthly 163 financial statements. The meetings budget is managed by the IAD. 165 2.4. IETF Administrative Oversight Committee 167 The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has the 168 responsibility to oversee and select IETF meeting venues. It 169 instructs the IAD to work with the Internet Society to write the 170 relevant contracts. It approves the IETF meetings calendar. 172 2.5. IETF Administrative Support Activity 174 The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) supports the meeting 175 selection process. This includes identifying, qualifying and 176 reporting on potential meeting sites, as well as supporting meeting 177 venue contract negotiation. The IETF Secretariat is part of the IASA 178 under the management of the IAD. 180 2.6. IETF Administrative Director 182 The IETF Administrative Director (IAD) coordinates and supports the 183 activities of the IETF Secretariat, the IAOC Meetings Committee and 184 the IAOC to ensure the timely execution of the meeting process. This 185 includes participating in the IAOC Meeting Subcommittee and ensuring 186 its efforts are documented, leading venue contract negotiation, and 187 coordinating contract execution with ISOC. 189 2.7. IAOC Meeting Committee 191 The IAOC Meeting Committee is generally referred to as the Meetings 192 Committee. 194 The fundamental purpose of the committee is to participate in the 195 venue selection process, and to formulate recommendations to the IAOC 196 regarding meeting sites. It also tracks the meetings sponsorship 197 program, recommends extraordinary meeting-related expenses, and 198 recommends the IETF meetings calendar to the IAOC. The charter of 199 the committee is located here: https://iaoc.ietf.org/ 200 committees.html#meetings. 202 Membership in the Meetings Committee is at the discretion of the 203 IAOC; it includes an IAOC appointed chair, the IETF Administrative 204 Director (IAD), IAOC members, representatives from the Secretariat, 205 and interested members of the community. 207 3. Venue Selection Process 209 The process of selecting a venue is described below and is based on 210 https://iaoc.ietf.org/venue-selection.html. 212 3.1. Venue Selection Principles 214 The IETF, and therefore the IAOC and its Meetings Committee, have 215 some core values that pervade the selection process. These are not 216 limited to the following, but at minimum include them. 218 Who are we? 219 We are computer scientists, engineers, network operators, 220 academics, and other interested parties sharing the goal of making 221 the Internet work better. At this time, the vast majority of 222 attendees come from North America, Western and Central Europe, and 223 Eastern Asia. We also have participants from other regions. 225 Why do we meet? 226 We meet to advance Internet standards development, to advance 227 Internet Drafts and RFCs. We meet to facilitate attendee 228 participation in multiple topics and to enable cross-pollination 229 of ideas and technology. 231 Where do we meet? 232 We meet in different locations globally in order to spread the 233 pain and cost of travel among active participants, balancing 234 travel time and expense across the regions from where IETF 235 participants are based. We also aim to enhance inclusiveness and 236 new contributions. 238 Inclusiveness: 239 We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote participation of 240 anyone who wants to be involved. Every country has limits on who 241 it will permit within its borders. This principle of 242 inclusiveness militates against the selection of venues within 243 countries that impose visa regulations and/or laws that 244 effectively exclude people on the basis of race, religion, gender, 245 sexual orientation, or national origin, and to a lesser extent, 246 reduces the likelihood of selecting countries that use such 247 attributes to make entry difficult. 249 Internet Access: 250 As an organization, we write specifications for the Internet, and 251 we use it heavily. Meeting attendees need unfiltered access to 252 the general Internet and our corporate networks, which are usually 253 reached using encrypted VPNs from the meeting venue and hotels, 254 including overflow hotels. We also need open network access 255 available at high enough data rates to support our work, including 256 the support of remote participation. 258 Focus: 259 We meet to have focused technical discussions. These are not 260 limited to breakout sessions, although of course those are 261 important; they also happen over meals or drinks (including a 262 specific type of non-session that we call a "Bar BOF"), or in side 263 meetings. Environments that are noisy or distracting prevent that 264 or reduce its effectiveness, and are therefore less desirable as a 265 meeting venue. 267 Economics: 268 Meeting attendees participate as individuals. While many have 269 their participation underwritten by employers or sponsors, there 270 are many who do not. Locations that do not provide convenient 271 budget alternatives for food and lodging, or which are multiple 272 travel segments from major airports, are therefore exclusionary, 273 and violate our value of "Inclusiveness". Within reason, budget 274 should not be a barrier to accommodation. 276 Political considerations: 277 The IETF does not make political statements. We do not decide who 278 is or is not a country, and we do not choose or not choose venues 279 based on political criteria. 281 3.2. Venue Selection Objectives 283 Venues for meetings are selected to advance the objectives of the 284 IETF, which are discussed in https://www.ietf.org/about/mission.html. 285 The IAOC's supporting objectives include: 287 o Advancing standards development 289 o Facilitating participation by active contributors 291 o Sharing the travel pain; balancing travel time and expense across 292 the regions from where IETF participants are based. 294 o Encouraging new contributors 296 o Generating funds to support IETF operations in support of 297 standards development, including the Secretariat, IASA, and the 298 RFC Editor. 300 There is an explicit intent to rotate meeting locations equally among 301 several places in accordance with IETF policy. However, a consistent 302 balance is sometimes difficult to achieve. The IAOC has an objective 303 of setting the Regions 4 years in advance, meeting in Europe, North 304 America, and Asia, with a possibility of occasionally meeting outside 305 those regions. This policy, known as the 1-1-1* model, is set by the 306 IESG, https://iaoc.ietf.org/minutes/2010-11-10-iaoc-minutes.txt, and 307 is further discussed in [I-D.krishnan-ietf-meeting-policy]. The 308 reason for the multi-year timeframe is maximization of opportunities; 309 the smaller the time available to qualify and contract a conference 310 venue, the more stress imposed on the qualification process, and the 311 greater the risk of not finding a suitable venue or paying more for 312 it. 314 There is no formal policy regarding rotation of regions, the time of 315 year for a meeting in a specific region, or whether a meeting in a 316 non-targeted region replaces a visit to one of the regions during 317 that year. 319 The IETF chair drives selection of "*" locations, i.e., venues 320 outside the usual regions, and requires community input. These 321 selections usually arise from evidence of growing interest and 322 participation in the new region. Expressions of interest from 323 possible hosts also factor into the meeting site selection process, 324 for any meeting. 326 Increased participation in the IETF from those other regions, 327 electronically or in person, could result in basic changes to the 328 overall pattern, and we encourage those who would like for that to 329 occur to encourage participation from those regions. 331 3.3. Venue Selection Criteria 333 A number of criteria are considered during the site selection 334 process. The list following is not sorted in any particular order, 335 but includes the committee's major considerations. 337 The selection of a venue always requires trade-offs. There are no 338 perfect venues. For example, a site may not have a single hotel that 339 can accommodate a significant number of the attendees of a typical 340 IETF. That doesn't disqualify it, but it may reduce its desirability 341 in the presence of an alternative that does. 343 Each identified criterion is labeled with the terms defined above in 344 Section 1.1, i.e., "Mandatory", "Desired", "Important" or "Would be 345 nice". These terms guide the trade-off analysis portion of the 346 selection process. All "Mandatory" labeled criteria must be met for 347 a venue to be selected. The remaining terms may be viewed as 348 weighting factors. 350 There are times where the evaluation of the criteria will be 351 subjective. This is even the case for criteria labeled as 352 "Mandatory". For this reason, the Meetings Committee will 353 specifically review, and affirm to its satisfaction, that all 354 "Mandatory" labeled criteria are satisfied by a particular venue and 355 main IETF hotel as part of the process defined below in Section 3.5. 357 3.3.1. Venue City Considerations 359 o Travel to the venue is reasonably acceptable based on cost, time, 360 and burden for participants traveling from multiple regions. It 361 is anticipated that the burden borne will be generally shared over 362 the course of the year. [Important] 364 o Travel barriers to entry, e.g., visa requirements that can limit 365 participation, are researched, noted, and carefully considered. 366 [Important] 368 o Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this venue are 369 researched, reviewed and carefully considered, at the time the 370 selection is made, and thereafter as the time for the meeting 371 approaches. [Important] 373 o Review available travel information (such as 374 https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country.html) for 375 issues that would be counter to our principles on inclusiveness 376 etc. [Important] 378 o The venue is assessed as favorable for obtaining a host and 379 sponsors. That is, the Meeting is in a location and at a price 380 that it is possible and probable to find a host and sponsors. 381 [Important] 383 o Prior successful IETF experience with the Venue and Venue city 384 will be considered as a positive factor when deciding among 385 multiple venues. [Would be nice] 387 o Consideration will be given to whether it makes sense to enter 388 into a multi-event contract with the venue to optimize meeting and 389 attendee benefits, i.e., reduce administrative costs and reduce 390 direct attendee costs. [Would be nice] 392 3.3.2. Basic Venue Criteria 394 o The Meeting Space is adequate in size and layout to accommodate 395 the meeting and foster participant interaction. [Mandatory] 397 o The venue and hotels can be put under contract. The subsequent 398 failure to put a selected venue under contract will result in a 399 re-evaluation of the venues and selection for the meeting. 400 [Mandatory] 402 o The cost of guest rooms, meeting space, meeting food and beverage 403 is affordable (within the norms of business travel). [Mandatory] 405 o The economics of the venue allow the meeting to be net cash 406 positive [Mandatory]. 408 o An Optimal Facility for an IETF meeting is held under "One Roof", 409 that is, qualified meeting space and guest rooms are available in 410 the same facility. [Desired] 412 o An Optimal Facility for an IETF meeting is accessible by people 413 with disabilities. 415 * The selected facility conforms with local accessibility laws 416 and regulations [Mandatory] 418 * http://www.sigaccess.org/welcome-to-sigaccess/resources/ 419 accessible-conference-guide/ provides a definition of related 420 considerations that shall be used in evaluating this criterion. 421 [Desired] 423 3.3.3. Technical Services and Operations Criteria 425 o The Venue's support technologies and services -- network, audio- 426 video, etc., are sufficient for the anticipated activities at the 427 meeting, or the venue is willing to add such infrastructure at no 428 or at an acceptable cost to the IETF. [Mandatory] 430 o The meeting venue must permit and facilitate the delivery of a 431 high performance, robust, unfiltered and unmodified IETF Network. 432 [Mandatory] 434 o The IETF hotel(s), which are one or more hotels in close proximity 435 to the venue where the primary IETF room allocations are 436 negotiated and the IETF SSIDs are in use, must provide, or permit 437 and facilitate, the delivery of a high performance, robust, 438 unfiltered and unmodified Internet service for the public areas 439 and guest rooms. This service is typically included in the cost 440 of the room. [Mandatory] 442 o The overflow hotels should provide reasonable, reliable, 443 unfiltered Internet service for the public areas and guest rooms. 444 This service is typically included in the cost of the room. 445 [Desired] 447 3.3.4. Lodging 449 o The IETF hotel(s) are within close proximity to each other and the 450 venue. [Mandatory] 452 o The Guest Rooms at the IETF hotel(s) are sufficient in number to 453 house 1/3 or more of projected meeting attendees. [Mandatory] 455 o The Venue environs include budget hotels within convenient travel 456 time, cost, and effort. [Mandatory] 458 o Overflow Hotels that can be placed under contract. They typically 459 must be within convenient travel time of the venue and have a 460 variety of guest room rates. [Mandatory] 462 o The IETF hotel(s) are accessible by people with disabilities. 464 * The selected facility conforms with local accessibility laws 465 and regulations [Mandatory] 467 * http://www.sigaccess.org/welcome-to-sigaccess/resources/ 468 accessible-conference-guide/ provides a definition of related 469 considerations that shall be used in evaluating this criterion. 470 [Desired] 472 3.3.5. Food and Beverage 474 o The Venue environs, which includes onsite, and the areas within a 475 reasonable walking distance, or conveniently accessible by a short 476 taxi, bus, or subway ride, has convenient and inexpensive choices 477 for meals that can accommodate a wide range of dietary 478 requirements. [Mandatory] 480 o The Venue environs include grocery shopping that will accommodate 481 a wide range of dietary requirements, within a reasonable walking 482 distance, or conveniently accessible by a short taxi, bus, or 483 subway ride. [Desired] 485 3.4. Non-criteria 487 The following is specifically not among the selection criteria: 489 o Visiting new locations for the sake of variety in meeting 490 locations. 492 3.5. Venue Selection Phases 494 Commencing the process four years in advance of an event results in 495 the following schedule as a guideline: 497 Phase 1: Identification and Preliminary Investigation 498 Four years out, a process identifies cities for meetings and 499 initiates site selection. 501 A. The IAOC selects regions for meetings. 503 B. Meeting target cities per region are provided to the 504 Secretariat based upon Meetings Committee input and, if known, 505 host preferences. 507 C. Potential venues in preferred cities identified and 508 investigated, including reviews of Official Advisory Sources, 509 consultation with specialty travel services, frequent 510 travelers and local contacts to identify possible barriers to 511 holding a successful meeting in the target cities. 513 D. Investigated cities and findings are provided by the 514 Secretariat to the Meetings Committee for review. Meetings 515 Committee makes a recommendation to the IAOC of investigated/ 516 target cities to consider further as well as issues identified 517 and the results of research conducted. 519 Phase 2: Community Consultation 520 The IAOC asks the community whether there are any barriers to 521 holding a successful meeting in the target cities. Community 522 responses are reviewed and concerns investigated. IAOC provides a 523 list of vetted cities to the Meetings Committee to pursue as 524 potential meeting locations. 526 Phase 3: Vetted Venues Evaluated for Site Qualification Visit 528 A. Secretariat Assesses "vetted" target cities to determine 529 availability and conformance to criteria 531 B. Meetings Committee approves potential cities for site 532 qualification visit. 534 C. Site qualification visits are arranged by Secretariat and 535 preliminary negotiations are undertaken with selected 536 potential sites 538 D. Site qualification visit is conducted using the checklist from 539 https://iaoc.ietf.org/meetings-committee/venue-selection.html; 540 The site visit team prepares a site report and discusses it 541 with the Meetings Committee. 543 Phase 4: Qualified Venues Evaluated for Contract 544 2.75 - 3 years out, initiate contract negotiations. 546 A. The Meetings Committee reviews the venue options based on 547 venue selection criteria and recommends a venue to the IAOC. 548 Only options that meet all Mandatory labeled criteria may be 549 recommended. 551 B. IAOC selects a venue for contracting as well as a back-up 552 contracting venue, if available. 554 C. Secretariat negotiates with selected venue. IAD reviews 555 contract and requests IAOC and ISOC approval of contract and 556 authority for Secretariat to execute contract on ISOC's 557 behalf. 559 D. Contracts are executed. 561 Phase 5: Evaluation and Contingency Planning 562 3 Months Prior to the Meeting, the meeting site is checked for 563 continued availability and conformance to expectations. 565 A. Secretariat reviews current status of the contracted meeting 566 location to confirm there is no change in the location status 567 and to identify possible new barriers to holding a successful 568 meeting in the contracted city and provides findings to the 569 IAOC. 571 B. IAOC considers the information provided and evaluates the risk 572 - if significant risk is identified, the Contingency Planning 573 Flow Chart (https://iaoc.ietf.org/meetings-committee/venue- 574 selection.html) is followed, if current risk is not 575 significant, the situation is monitored through the meeting to 576 ensure there is no significant change. 578 3.6. Experience Notes 580 a. The foregoing process works with reasonable certainty in North 581 America and Europe. 583 b. Experience to date for Asia and Latin America is that contracts 584 take longer and often will not be executed more than two years in 585 advance of the meeting. While the IETF will have the first 586 option for the dates, for reasons not completely understood 587 contracts won't be executed. 589 4. Transparency 591 BCP 101 requires transparency in IASA process and contracts, and 592 thereby of the meetings committee. BCP 101 also states that the IAOC 593 approves what information is to remain confidential. Therefore any 594 information produced by the meetings committee or related to meetings 595 that individuals believe is confidential, e.g., venue contracts, must 596 be confirmed to be confidential by the IAOC. 598 5. IANA Considerations 600 This memo asks the IANA for no new parameters. 602 6. Security Considerations 604 This note proposes no protocols, and therefore no new protocol 605 insecurities. 607 7. Privacy Considerations 609 This note reveals no personally identifying information apart from 610 its authorship. 612 8. Contributors 614 In addition to the editor, text was developed by 616 Ray Pelletier 617 Internet Society 618 Email: rpelletier@isoc.org 620 Laura Nugent 621 Association Management Solutions 622 +1 (510) 492-4008 623 Email: lnugent@amsl.com 625 Dave Crocker 626 Brandenburg InternetWorking 627 +1.408.246.8253 628 Email: dcrocker@bbiw.net 630 Lou Berger 631 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. 632 Email: lberger@labn.net 634 Ole Jacobsen 635 The Internet Protocol Journal 636 +1 415 550-9433 637 Email: olejacobsen@me.com 639 Jim Martin 640 INOC 641 +1 608 807-0454 642 Email: jim@inoc.com 644 9. Acknowledgements 646 Additional commentary came from Jari Arkko and Scott Bradner. 648 10. References 650 10.1. Normative References 652 [I-D.krishnan-ietf-meeting-policy] 653 Krishnan, S., "High level guidance for the meeting policy 654 of the IETF", draft-krishnan-ietf-meeting-policy-00 (work 655 in progress), June 2016. 657 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 658 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 659 . 661 [RFC4071] Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the 662 IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC 663 4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005, 664 . 666 [RFC4371] Carpenter, B., Ed. and L. Lynch, Ed., "BCP 101 Update for 667 IPR Trust", BCP 101, RFC 4371, DOI 10.17487/RFC4371, 668 January 2006, . 670 [RFC7691] Bradner, S., Ed., "Updating the Term Dates of IETF 671 Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) Members", BCP 672 101, RFC 7691, DOI 10.17487/RFC7691, November 2015, 673 . 675 10.2. Informative References 677 [I-D.barnes-healthy-food] 678 Barnes, M., "Healthy Food and Special Dietary Requirements 679 for IETF meetings", draft-barnes-healthy-food-07 (work in 680 progress), July 2013. 682 Appendix A. Change Log 684 2016-01-12: Initial version 686 2016-01-21: Update to reflect https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/ 687 VenueSelectionCriteriaJan2016.pdf and 688 https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/VenueSelectionProcess11Jan16.pdf, 689 accessed from https://iaoc.ietf.org/private/privatemeetings.html. 691 2016-02-23: Reorganize and capture IAOC Meetings Committee 692 discussions. 694 2016-03-03: Final from Design Team. 696 2016-03-17: First update incorporating mtgvenue@ietf.org comments 698 2016-05-20 Updated in accordance with editing by Laura Nugent, Dave 699 Crocker, Lou Berger, Fred Baker, and others. 701 Author's Address 703 Fred Baker (editor) 704 Cisco Systems 705 Santa Barbara, California 93117 706 USA 708 Email: fred@cisco.com