idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-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 (22 February 2021) is 1160 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 22 February 2021 5 Expires: 26 August 2021 7 Considerations for Cancellation of IETF Meetings 8 draft-ietf-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 26 August 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 4.4. Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 5. Refunds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 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-shmoo-cancel-meetings-01 . . . . . . . . 7 67 B.2. Since draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meetings-00 . . . . . . . . 7 68 B.3. Since draft-duke-remote-meetings-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 1. Introduction 73 One highlight of the IETF calendar is in-person general meetings, 74 which happen three times a year at various locations around the 75 world. 77 Various events could make a scheduled IETF meeting impossible, in 78 that a particular time or place can be largely closed to travel or 79 assembly. These conditions do not always have obvious thresholds. 80 For example: 82 * The meeting venue itself may close unexpectedly due to a health 83 issue, legal violation, or other localized problem. 85 * A natural disaster could degrade the travel and event 86 infrastructure in a planned location and make it unethical to 87 further burden that infrastructure with a meeting. 89 * War, civil unrest, or public health crisis could make a meeting 90 unsafe and/or result in widespread national or corporate travel 91 bans. 93 * An economic crisis could sharply reduce resources available for 94 travel. 96 * Changes in visa policy or other unexpected governmental 97 restrictions might make the venue inaccessible to numerous 98 attendees. 100 This document provides procedures for the IETF to decide to postpone, 101 move, or cancel an in-person IETF meeting. 103 2. Conventions 105 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 106 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 107 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 109 In this document, the term "venue" refers to both the facility that 110 houses the sessions and the official meeting hotel(s). 112 3. Decision Criteria and Roles 114 3.1. IETF LLC 116 The LLC is responsible for assessing if it is safe to hold the 117 meeting given the following criteria. This assessment SHOULD occur 118 eight weeks prior to the first day of the meeting, though events may 119 require reevaluation as late as during the meeting itself. 121 This document provides a consensus of principles the LLC can apply in 122 emergency situations, to avoid operating without such consensus or 123 invoking a time-consuming consensus process. In the event of 124 considerations this document does not foresee, the LLC should protect 125 the health and safety of attendees, as well as the health of the 126 organization, with approval from the IESG and a plan to seek a later 127 update of this document. 129 The criteria in Section 3.1 of [RFC8718] apply to venues that have 130 changed status. Specifically: 132 * Local safety guidelines allow the venue and hotels to host a 133 meeting with the expected number of participants and staff. 135 * It MUST be possible to provision Internet Access to the Facility 136 and IETF Hotels that allows those attending in person to utilize 137 the Internet for all their IETF, business, and day-to-day needs; 138 in addition, there must be sufficient bandwidth and access for 139 remote attendees. Provisions include, but are not limited to, 140 native and unmodified IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, and global 141 reachability; there may be no additional limitation that would 142 materially impact their Internet use. To ensure availability, it 143 MUST be possible to provision redundant paths to the Internet. 145 * A reasonable number of food and drink establishments are open and 146 available within walking distance to provide for the full number 147 of participants and staff. 149 * Local health and public safety infrastructure should expect to 150 have adequate capacity to support an influx of visitors during the 151 meeting week. 153 The LLC must also confirm that: 155 * There are no US [USSTATE], UK [UKFO], or local authority travel 156 advisories for the location of the meeting. The first two are 157 chosen to be easily accessible in English, which all IETF staff 158 can read. This should not be interpreted as requiring 159 cancellation due to a warning about a different region in the host 160 nation, or in the rural area surrounding a host city provided 161 transportation to the airport is secure. 163 * Air travel is assessed as safe by the relevent health and safety 164 authorities. 166 * Travel insurance is both available and priced close to norms. 168 * There is no quarantine or self-isolation requirement at the 169 location. 171 * Other similar international meetings (conferences) are going ahead 172 at a similar time to IETF. 174 Finally, the LLC should assess the impact of various travel 175 restrictions, legal and corporate, on the ability of critical support 176 staff and contractors to enter the host nation. The LLC can cancel 177 the event if it concludes it cannot adequately support it. 179 3.2. IESG 181 The IESG assesses if projected attendance is high enough to capture 182 the benefit of an in-person meeting. In some cases, corporate travel 183 restrictions may lower attendance in the absence of any formal 184 guidance from authorities. If it concludes that attendance is too 185 low, it can cancel the meeting regardless of the LLC's safety 186 assessment. 188 The IESG is discouraged from relying on a simple head count of 189 expected event attendance. Even dramatically smaller events with 190 large remote participation may be successful. The IESG might 191 consider: 193 * Are many working groups largely unaffected by the restrictions, so 194 that they can operate effectively? 196 * Is there a critical mass of key personnel at most working group 197 meetings to leverage the advantages of in-person meetings, even if 198 many participants are remote? 200 The IESG is encouraged to solicit information from the IRTF char, 201 Working Group chairs, and Research Group chairs to make this 202 assessment. 204 4. Remedies 206 In the event cannot be held at the scheduled time and place, the IETF 207 has several options. The remedies below should be consdered in light 208 of these principles, presented in no particular order: 210 * Hold the scheduled sessions of the meeting in some format 212 * Provide benefits of in-person interactions when possible 214 * Avoid exorbitant additional travel expenses due to last minute 215 flight changes, etc. 217 * The available time and resources allow the alternative to be 218 adequately prepared. 220 4.1. Relocation 222 For attendees, the least disruptive response is to retain the meeting 223 week but move it to a more accessible venue. To the maximum extent 224 possible, this will be geographically close to the original venue. 225 In particular, the IETF should strive to meet the criteria in 226 [RFC8718] and [RFC8719]. 228 Relocation that requires new air travel arrangements for attendees 229 SHOULD NOT occur less than one month prior to the start of the 230 meeting. 232 4.2. Virtualization 234 The second option, and one that has fewer issues with venue 235 availability, is to make the meeting fully remote. This requires 236 different IETF processes and logistical operations that are outside 237 the scope of this document. 239 4.3. Postponement 241 Although it is more disruptive to the schedules of participants, the 242 next best option is to delay the meeting until a specific date at 243 which conditions are expected to improve. The new end date of the 244 meeting must be at least 30 days before the beginning of the 245 following IETF meeting. 247 Due to scheduling constraints at the venue, this will usually not be 248 feasible. However, it is more likely to allow attendees to recover 249 at least some of their travel expenses than other options. 251 4.4. Cancellation 253 As a last resort, IETF may cancel the meeting totally. This is a 254 last resort in the event that worldwide conditions make it difficult 255 for attendees to even attend remotely. Not holding a meeting at all 256 has wide implications for the rhythm of IETF personnel policies, such 257 as the nomination process and seating of new officers. 259 Cancellation is likely the only practical alternative when 260 emergencies occur immeidiately before or during the meeting, so that 261 there is no opportunity to make other arrangements. 263 5. Refunds 265 The IETF SHOULD NOT reimburse registered attendees for unrecoverable 266 travel expenses (airfare, hotel deposits, etc). 268 However, there are several cases where full or partial refund of 269 registration fees is appropriate: 271 * Cancellation SHOULD result in a full refund to all participants. 272 It MAY be prorated if some portion of the sessions completed 273 without incident. 275 * Upon postponement, the LLC SHOULD offer refunds to registered 276 attendees who claim they cannot attend at the newly scheduled 277 time. 279 * When the meeting becomes remote, the LLC SHOULD attempt to recover 280 whatever venue-related payments, past or future, it can and rebate 281 this to registered attendees, up to a maximum of their total cost 282 of registration. 284 These provisions intend to maintain trust between the IETF and its 285 participants. However, under extraordinary threats to the solvency 286 of the organization, the LLC may suspend them. 288 6. Security Considerations 290 This document introduces no new concerns for the security of internet 291 protocols. 293 7. IANA Considerations 295 There are no IANA requirements. 297 8. Informative References 299 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 300 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 301 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 302 . 304 [RFC8718] Lear, E., Ed., "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection 305 Process", BCP 226, RFC 8718, DOI 10.17487/RFC8718, 306 February 2020, . 308 [RFC8719] Krishnan, S., "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy 309 of the IETF", BCP 226, RFC 8719, DOI 10.17487/RFC8719, 310 February 2020, . 312 [UKFO] Office, U.F., "Foreign Travel Advice", n.d., 313 . 315 [USSTATE] State, U.D.o., "International Travel", n.d., 316 . 319 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 321 Appendix B. Change Log 323 B.1. Since draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meetings-01 325 * Change to WG draft 327 B.2. Since draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meetings-00 329 * Added mention of IRTF 331 * Discussed consensus on cancellation 333 B.3. Since draft-duke-remote-meetings-00 335 * Defined "venue" 337 * Added principles for selecting remedies and rewrote alternatives. 339 * Added local authority travel advisories 341 * Added some criteria from IETF 109 343 Author's Address 345 Martin Duke 346 F5 Networks, Inc. 348 Email: martin.h.duke@gmail.com