idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting-01.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 (29 March 2021) is 1124 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 29 March 2021 5 Expires: 30 September 2021 7 Considerations for Cancellation of IETF Meetings 8 draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting-01 10 Abstract 12 The IETF firmly believes in the value of in-person meetings to 13 discuss and undestand issues. However, various emergencies can make 14 a 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 30 September 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 4. Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 4.1. Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 4.2. Virtualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 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-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-00 . . . . . . . . 7 67 B.2. Since draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meetings-01 . . . . . . . . 8 68 B.3. Since draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meetings-00 . . . . . . . . 8 69 B.4. Since draft-duke-remote-meetings-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 8 70 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 1. Introduction 74 One highlight of the IETF calendar is in-person general meetings, 75 which happen three times a year at various locations around the 76 world. 78 Various major events may affect the suitability of a scheduled in- 79 person IETF meeting, though for some this may not be immediately 80 obvious. For example: 82 * The meeting venue itself may unexpectedly close or otherwise be 83 unable to meet IETF meeting requirements due to a health issue, 84 legal violation, or other localized problem. 86 * A natural disaster could degrade the travel and event 87 infrastructure in a planned location and make it unethical to 88 further burden that infrastructure with a meeting. 90 * War, civil unrest, or public health crisis could make a meeting 91 unsafe and/or result in widespread national or corporate travel 92 bans. 94 * An economic crisis could sharply reduce resources available for 95 travel. 97 * Changes in visa policy or other unexpected governmental 98 restrictions might make the venue inaccessible to numerous 99 attendees. 101 This document provides procedures for the IETF to decide to postpone, 102 move, or cancel an in-person IETF meeting. 104 2. Conventions 106 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 107 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 108 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 110 In this document, the term "venue" refers to both the facility that 111 houses the sessions and the official meeting hotel(s). 113 3. Decision Criteria and Roles 115 The LLC assesses whether or not an in-person meeting is logistically 116 and financially viable in light of events, and assembles information 117 about various travel restrictions that might impact attendance. The 118 IESG assesses if the projected attendance is sufficient for a viable 119 in-person meeting. 121 3.1. IETF LLC 123 The LLC is responsible for assessing the suitability of a venue for 124 an IETF meeting and is responsible for any reassessment in response 125 to a major event that leaves the prior conclusion in doubt. Where 126 such an event occurs more that twelve weeks before the start of the 127 scheduled meeting, it is deemed a non- emergency situation. Later 128 events, up to and including the week of the meeting itself, are 129 deemed an emergency situation. 131 In non-emergency situations, if the LLC determines the scheduled 132 meeting clearly cannot proceed (e.g. the venue has permanently 133 closed), then it MUST consult with the community on the reason(s) and 134 its proposed remedy. In less clear cases, the LLC SHOULD conduct a 135 formal reassessment process that includes: 137 * Consulting with the community on the process timetable 139 * Consulting with the community on criteria to assess the impact of 140 new developments 142 * Consulting with the community on the form of the assessment report 144 * Publishing an assessment report and recommended remedy. 146 * Seeking approval of the IESG for the recommendation. 148 In emergency situations, which lack the time for a consultation 149 process, this document provides an IETF consensus on criteria the LLC 150 MUST apply in its assessment. 152 The LLC will collect information about the likely impact to in-person 153 attendance of national travel advisories, national and corporate 154 travel bans, quarantine requirements, etc. and report the results to 155 the IESG. 157 The criteria in Section 3.1 of [RFC8718] apply to venues that have 158 changed status. Specifically: 160 * Local safety guidelines allow the venue and hotels to host a 161 meeting with the expected number of participants and staff. 163 * It MUST be possible to provision Internet Access to the Facility 164 and IETF Hotels that allows those attending in person to utilize 165 the Internet for all their IETF, business, and day-to-day needs; 166 in addition, there must be sufficient bandwidth and access for 167 remote attendees. Provisions include, but are not limited to, 168 native and unmodified IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, and global 169 reachability; there may be no additional limitation that would 170 materially impact their Internet use. To ensure availability, it 171 MUST be possible to provision redundant paths to the Internet. 173 * A reasonable number of food and drink establishments are open and 174 available within walking distance to provide for the expected 175 number of participants and staff. 177 * Local health and public safety infrastructure should expect to 178 have adequate capacity to support an influx of visitors during the 179 meeting week. 181 Finally, the LLC MUST assess the impact on its own operations, 182 including: 184 * The number of critical support staff and contractors who can be at 185 the venue 187 * The financial impact of continuing the meeting, or implementing 188 any of the possible remedies. 190 The LLC SHOULD cancel the meeting if it judges the meeting to be 191 logistically impossible or inconsistent with its fiduciary 192 responsibilities. 194 In the event of considerations this document does not foresee, the 195 LLC should protect the health and safety of attendees and staff, as 196 well as the fiscal health of the organization, with approval from the 197 IESG and a plan to seek a later update of this document. 199 3.2. IESG 201 If the LLC assesses there are no fundamental logistical or financial 202 obstacles to holding the meeting, the IESG assesses if projected 203 attendance is high enough to capture the benefit of an in-person 204 meeting. 206 The IESG is discouraged from relying on a simple head count of 207 expected event attendance. Even dramatically smaller events with 208 large remote participation may be successful. In addition to the 209 LLC's estimate, the IESG might consider: 211 * Are many working groups largely unaffected by the restrictions, so 212 that they can operate effectively? 214 * Is there a critical mass of key personnel at most working group 215 meetings to leverage the advantages of in-person meetings, even if 216 many participants are remote? 218 4. Remedies 220 In the event cannot be held at the scheduled time and place, the IETF 221 has several options. The remedies below should be consdered in light 222 of these principles, presented in no particular order: 224 * Hold the scheduled sessions of the meeting in some format 226 * Provide benefits of in-person interactions when possible 228 * Avoid exorbitant additional travel expenses due to last minute 229 flight changes, etc. 231 * The available time and resources allow the alternative to be 232 adequately prepared. 234 4.1. Relocation 236 For attendees, the least disruptive response is to retain the meeting 237 week but move it to a more accessible venue. To the maximum extent 238 possible, this will be geographically close to the original venue. 239 In particular, the IETF should strive to meet the criteria in 240 [RFC8718] and [RFC8719]. 242 Relocation that requires new air travel arrangements for attendees 243 SHOULD NOT occur less than one month prior to the start of the 244 meeting. 246 4.2. Virtualization 248 The second option, and one that has fewer issues with venue 249 availability, is to make the meeting fully remote. This requires 250 different IETF processes and logistical operations that are outside 251 the scope of this document. 253 4.3. Postponement 255 Although it is more disruptive to the schedules of participants, the 256 next best option is to delay the meeting until a specific date at 257 which conditions are expected to improve. The new end date of the 258 meeting must be at least 30 days before the beginning of the 259 following IETF meeting. 261 Due to scheduling constraints at the venue, this will usually not be 262 feasible. However, it is more likely to allow attendees to recover 263 at least some of their travel expenses than other options. 265 4.4. Cancellation 267 As a last resort, IETF may cancel the meeting totally. This is a 268 last resort in the event that worldwide conditions make it difficult 269 for attendees to even attend remotely. Not holding a meeting at all 270 has wide implications for the rhythm of IETF personnel policies, such 271 as the nomination process and seating of new officers. 273 Cancellation is likely the only practical alternative when 274 emergencies occur immeidiately before or during the meeting, so that 275 there is no opportunity to make other arrangements. 277 5. Refunds 279 The IETF SHOULD NOT reimburse registered attendees for unrecoverable 280 travel expenses (airfare, hotel deposits, etc). 282 However, there are several cases where full or partial refund of 283 registration fees is appropriate: 285 * Cancellation SHOULD result in a full refund to all participants. 286 It MAY be prorated if some portion of the sessions completed 287 without incident. 289 * Upon postponement, the LLC SHOULD offer refunds to registered 290 attendees who claim they cannot attend at the newly scheduled 291 time. 293 * When the meeting becomes remote, the LLC SHOULD attempt to recover 294 whatever venue-related payments, past or future, it can and rebate 295 this to registered attendees, up to a maximum of their total cost 296 of registration. 298 These provisions intend to maintain trust between the IETF and its 299 participants. However, under extraordinary threats to the solvency 300 of the organization, the LLC may suspend them. 302 6. Security Considerations 304 This document introduces no new concerns for the security of internet 305 protocols. 307 7. IANA Considerations 309 There are no IANA requirements. 311 8. Informative References 313 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 314 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 315 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 316 . 318 [RFC8718] Lear, E., Ed., "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection 319 Process", BCP 226, RFC 8718, DOI 10.17487/RFC8718, 320 February 2020, . 322 [RFC8719] Krishnan, S., "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy 323 of the IETF", BCP 226, RFC 8719, DOI 10.17487/RFC8719, 324 February 2020, . 326 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 328 Appendix B. Change Log 330 B.1. Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-00 332 * Jay Daley's nits 334 * Distinguish the emergency and non-emergency process 336 * Eliminated USSTATE/UKFO references 337 * Clarified roles of LLC and IESG 339 B.2. Since draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meetings-01 341 * Change to WG draft 343 B.3. Since draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meetings-00 345 * Added mention of IRTF 347 * Discussed consensus on cancellation 349 B.4. Since draft-duke-remote-meetings-00 351 * Defined "venue" 353 * Added principles for selecting remedies and rewrote alternatives. 355 * Added local authority travel advisories 357 * Added some criteria from IETF 109 359 Author's Address 361 Martin Duke 362 F5 Networks, Inc. 364 Email: martin.h.duke@gmail.com