idnits 2.17.1 draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meeting-00.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 (13 January 2021) is 1193 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) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 shmoo M. Duke 3 Internet-Draft F5 Networks, Inc. 4 Intended status: Best Current Practice 13 January 2021 5 Expires: 17 July 2021 7 Considerations for Cancellation of IETF Meetings 8 draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meeting-00 10 Abstract 12 The IETF firmly believes in the value of in-person meetings to reach 13 consensus on documents. However, various emergencies can make a 14 planned in-person meeting impossible. This document provides 15 criteria for making this judgment. 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 https://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 17 July 2021. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2021 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 41 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 42 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 43 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 44 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 45 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 46 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 3. Decision Criteria and Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 3.1. IETF LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3.2. IESG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 4. Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 4.1. Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 4.2. Virtualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 4.3. Postponement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 4.4. Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 5. Refunds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 B.1. Since draft-duke-remote-meetings-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 1. Introduction 71 One highlight of the IETF calendar is in-person general meetings, 72 which happen three times a year at various locations around the 73 world. 75 Various events could make a scheduled IETF meeting impossible, in 76 that a particular time or place can be largely closed to travel or 77 assembly. These conditions do not always have obvious thresholds. 78 For example: 80 * The meeting venue itself may close unexpectedly due to a health 81 issue, legal violation, or other localized problem. 83 * A natural disaster could degrade the travel and event 84 infrastructure in a planned location and make it unethical to 85 further burden that infrastructure with a meeting. 87 * War, civil unrest, or public health crisis could make a meeting 88 unsafe and/or result in widespread national or corporate travel 89 bans. 91 * An economic crisis could sharply reduce resources available for 92 travel. 94 * Changes in visa policy or other unexpected governmental 95 restrictions might make the venue inaccessible to numerous 96 attendees. 98 This document provides procedures for the IETF to decide to postpone, 99 move, or cancel an in-person IETF meeting. 101 2. Conventions 103 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 104 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 105 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 107 In this document, the term "venue" refers to both the facility that 108 houses the sessions and the official meeting hotel(s). 110 3. Decision Criteria and Roles 112 3.1. IETF LLC 114 The LLC is responsible for assessing if it is safe to hold the 115 meeting given the following criteria. This assessment SHOULD occur 116 eight weeks prior to the first day of the meeting, though events may 117 require reevaluation as late as during the meeting itself. 119 The criteria in Section 3.1 of [RFC8718] apply to venues that have 120 changed status. Specifically: 122 * Local safety guidelines allow the venue and hotels to host a 123 meeting with the expected number of participants and staff. 125 * It MUST be possible to provision Internet Access to the Facility 126 and IETF Hotels that allows those attending in person to utilize 127 the Internet for all their IETF, business, and day-to-day needs; 128 in addition, there must be sufficient bandwidth and access for 129 remote attendees. Provisions include, but are not limited to, 130 native and unmodified IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, and global 131 reachability; there may be no additional limitation that would 132 materially impact their Internet use. To ensure availability, it 133 MUST be possible to provision redundant paths to the Internet. 135 * A reasonable number of food and drink establishments are open and 136 available within walking distance to provide for the full number 137 of participants and staff. 139 * Local health and public safety infrastructure should expect to 140 have adequate capacity to support an influx of visitors during the 141 meeting week. 143 The LLC must also confirm that: 145 * There are no US [USSTATE], UK [UKFO], or local authority travel 146 advisories for the location of the meeting. The first two are 147 chosen to be easily accessible in English, which all IETF staff 148 can read. This should not be interpreted as requiring 149 cancellation due to a warning about a different region in the host 150 nation, or in the rural area surrounding a host city provided 151 transportation to the airport is secure. 153 * Air travel is assessed as safe by the relevent health and safety 154 authorities. 156 * Travel insurance is both available and priced close to norms. 158 * There is no quarantine or self-isolation requirement at the 159 location. 161 * Other similar international meetings (conferences) are going ahead 162 at a similar time to IETF. 164 Finally, the LLC should assess the impact of various travel 165 restrictions, legal and corporate, on the ability of critical support 166 staff and contractors to enter the host nation. The LLC can cancel 167 the event if it concludes it cannot adequately support it. 169 3.2. IESG 171 The IESG assesses if projected attendance is high enough to capture 172 the benefit of an in-person meeting. In some cases, corporate travel 173 restrictions may lower attendance in the absence of any formal 174 guidance from authorities. If it concludes that attendance is too 175 low, it can cancel the meeting regardless of the LLC's safety 176 assessment. 178 The IESG is discouraged from relying on a simple head count of 179 expected event attendance. Even dramatically smaller events with 180 large remote participation may be successful. The IESG might 181 consider: 183 * Are many working groups largely unaffected by the restrictions, so 184 that they can operate effectively? 186 * Is there a critical mass of key personnel at most working group 187 meetings to leverage the advantages of in-person meetings, even if 188 many participants are remote? 190 The IESG is encouraged to solicit information from Working Group 191 chairs to make this assessment. 193 4. Remedies 195 In the event cannot be held at the scheduled time and place, the IETF 196 has several options. The remedies below should be consdered in light 197 of these principles, presented in no particular order: 199 * Hold the scheduled sessions of the meeting in some format 201 * Provide benefits of in-person interactions when possible 203 * Avoid exorbitant additional travel expenses due to last minute 204 flight changes, etc. 206 * The available time and resources allow the alternative to be 207 adequately prepared. 209 4.1. Relocation 211 For attendees, the least disruptive response is to retain the meeting 212 week but move it to a more accessible venue. To the maximum extent 213 possible, this will be geographically close to the original venue. 214 In particular, the IETF should strive to meet the criteria in 215 [RFC8718] and [RFC8719]. 217 Relocation that requires new air travel arrangements for attendees 218 SHOULD NOT occur less than one month prior to the start of the 219 meeting. 221 4.2. Virtualization 223 The second option, and one that has fewer issues with venue 224 availability, is to make the meeting fully remote. This requires 225 different IETF processes and logistical operations that are outside 226 the scope of this document. 228 4.3. Postponement 230 Although it is more disruptive to the schedules of participants, the 231 next best option is to delay the meeting until a specific date at 232 which conditions are expected to improve. The new end date of the 233 meeting must be at least 30 days before the beginning of the 234 following IETF meeting. 236 Due to scheduling constraints at the venue, this will usually not be 237 feasible. However, it is more likely to allow attendees to recover 238 at least some of their travel expenses than other options. 240 4.4. Cancellation 242 As a last resort, IETF may cancel the meeting totally. This is a 243 last resort in the event that worldwide conditions make it difficult 244 for attendees to even attend remotely. Not holding a meeting at all 245 has wide implications for the rhythm of IETF personnel policies, such 246 as the nomination process and seating of new officers. 248 Cancellation is likely the only practical alternative when 249 emergencies occur immeidiately before or during the meeting, so that 250 there is no opportunity to make other arrangements. 252 5. Refunds 254 The IETF SHOULD NOT reimburse registered attendees for unrecoverable 255 travel expenses (airfare, hotel deposits, etc). 257 However, there are several cases where full or partial refund of 258 registration fees is appropriate: 260 * Cancellation SHOULD result in a full refund to all participants. 261 It MAY be prorated if some portion of the sessions completed 262 without incident. 264 * Upon postponement, the LLC SHOULD offer refunds to registered 265 attendees who claim they cannot attend at the newly scheduled 266 time. 268 * When the meeting becomes remote, the LLC SHOULD attempt to recover 269 whatever venue-related payments, past or future, it can and rebate 270 this to registered attendees, up to a maximum of their total cost 271 of registration. 273 These provisions intend to maintain trust between the IETF and its 274 participants. However, under extraordinary threats to the solvency 275 of the organization, the LLC may suspend them. 277 6. Security Considerations 279 This document introduces no new concerns for the security of internet 280 protocols. 282 7. IANA Considerations 284 There are no IANA requirements. 286 8. Informative References 288 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 289 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 290 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 291 . 293 [RFC8718] Lear, E., Ed., "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection 294 Process", BCP 226, RFC 8718, DOI 10.17487/RFC8718, 295 February 2020, . 297 [RFC8719] Krishnan, S., "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy 298 of the IETF", BCP 226, RFC 8719, DOI 10.17487/RFC8719, 299 February 2020, . 301 [UKFO] Office, U.F., "Foreign Travel Advice", n.d., 302 . 304 [USSTATE] State, U.D.o., "International Travel", n.d., 305 . 308 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 310 Appendix B. Change Log 312 B.1. Since draft-duke-remote-meetings-00 314 * Defined "venue" 316 * Added principles for selecting remedies and rewrote alternatives. 318 * Added local authority travel advisories 320 * Added some criteria from IETF 109 322 Author's Address 324 Martin Duke 325 F5 Networks, Inc. 327 Email: martin.h.duke@gmail.com