[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

Internet Engineering Task Force                                 J. Palet
Internet-Draft                                               Consulintel
Expires: July 20, 2006                                  January 16, 2006

                 IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 20, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).


   This document provides the IAD with technical and logistic criteria
   for selecting venues for IETF meetings.

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria     January 2006

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Location and Hosting Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  Vacation Destinations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Hosting and Sponsorship  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3.  Freedom of Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.4.  Productivity and Working Environment . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.5.  Attendance Limitation and Visas  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.6.  Decision and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Logistic Criteria for Venue Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Meeting Rooms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Other Venue Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  Sleeping Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.4.  Local Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.5.  Airport/Wide-Area Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.6.  Food Logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.7.  Technical and Regulatory Considerations  . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.8.  Health Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   4.  Logistic Risks and Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  Technical Requirements and Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  Timing and Planning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  Venue Acceptance/Rejection Report  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  Process and Openness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 18

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria     January 2006

1.  Introduction

   IETF meetings are an important part of the IETF process.  As such,
   their hosting and organization should be planned carefully.  This
   will ensure that attendees make the best use of their meeting time,
   maximize they performance and that unexpected developments (such as
   cancellations, inadequate working conditions, and unreliable
   connectivity) do not occur.

   This document describes logistic and technical criteria for venue
   selection, logistic and technical contingency measures, and details
   related to the planning and timing of meetings.

   Generally, this document does not present a strict list of "MUST"
   items.  Instead, it lists what needs to be evaluated, various
   alternative solutions, or combinations thereof, that may apply.  In
   the end, the IAD will make the final decision and will be accountable
   for it, and therefore he is responsible for applying the criteria
   defined in this document according to the hosting/sponsorship

   Experience shows that things could go wrong when there is too strict
   a dependence on specific people or equipment and when no alternatives
   are provisioned for.  Consequently, contingencies are a very
   important consideration.

2.  Location and Hosting Criteria

   The number of participants in the IETF is growing.  Although many of
   these participants are from North America, experience shows that when
   a meeting is organized elsewhere, fewer than half the participants
   come from there.  Consequently, to ensure open international access,
   it has been suggested that the IETF meet outside North America at
   least once every three times.

   However, this recommendation is often too simple.  The overall
   selection criteria from this document will qualify the location.

   When a location is being chosen, it is important to consider that the
   monetary surplus coming from the meetings goes toward sustaining the
   IETF.  Each meeting's overall cost should be considered part of a
   global operation.  A lower meeting cost (food, facilities, network,
   meeting fees, host capabilities, sponsorship) may not necessarily
   mean a lower secretariat cost.  At the same time, the overall average
   participant cost must also be taken in consideration.  Although a
   cheap venue generates a high surplus for the IETF, the average cost
   for attendees (flights, hotels, other costs) might become much more

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria     January 2006

   expensive, which might generate a drop in the attendance.

2.1.  Vacation Destinations

   Vacation destinations may seem difficult for some people to justify
   as a business expense, but for a few people this could also be true
   for other situations.  Often, frequent contributors to the IETF will
   not need to justify their participation regardless of the location.

   If a vacation spot is to be chosen as a meeting location, places with
   a very heavy concentration of visitors should be avoided.  Congested
   airport traffic could make transit for IETF participants difficult.
   It should be confirmed that the additional load caused by IETF
   participants would not be an issue.

2.2.  Hosting and Sponsorship

   The choice of continent and country depends not only on the
   logistical and technical criteria listed in this document, but also
   on offers of hosting and sponsorship.  The IETF desires to meet in
   countries with significant actual or potential participation.

   Hosting and sponsorship have a particular financial and
   organizational impact.  Experience shows that when the IETF goes to a
   new country, an eager and committed local host organization is vital.
   A local host willing to sponsor some facilities for the meeting
   (without marketing noise) may be of great budgetary assistance,
   regardless of the country.

   Some of these matters may be subject to confidential negotiations,
   which should be in the hands of IASA and, in particular, the IAD [1].

   Regarding the sponsorship itself, the meetings are not directly
   rewarding as a marketing action, as is usually the case for other
   events.  This is because the IETF community mainly comprises
   engineers, who are generally not the decision makers who may become
   customers.  However, sponsoring IETF offers an important reward from
   the perspective of community contribution.  This "lower-level" reward
   is one more reason to make sure that not all sponsorship details are
   openly disseminated, unless the host clearly authorizes this.  Even
   if the host does, open dissemination can be counterproductive for
   future meetings.

   However it may be interesting to have, after each meeting, a summary
   evaluation of all the issues and costs, overall figures, which will
   help to improve the criteria and the performance of the following

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria     January 2006

2.3.  Freedom of Participation

   Meetings should not be held in countries where some attendees could
   be disallowed entry or where freedom of speech is not guaranteed for
   all participants.

   IETF is an open organization, and anyone from any region should
   always be able to participate, so the meeting place cannot be a

   The country hosting the IETF meeting should not restrict the
   participant's freedom of expression; for example, by blocking web
   sites or redirecting dns that may be required during the meeting for
   usual participant's business, censoring of personal communications,
   blocking of VPN/SSH and other similar practices.

   Freedom of speech during the meeting must be guaranteed.

   Abridged participation by local participants should be seriously
   considered as well.  For example, local participants could be under
   pressure to support national technical policies on threat of
   imprisonment or other punitive actions.

   Local participants should be able to attend a meeting without any
   special government approval.  Otherwise, the venue does not support
   increased local participation, which is one of the IETF's goals.

2.4.  Productivity and Working Environment

   The productivity of working groups in IETF meetings is very
   important.  This means that the "ideal" venue should try to
   facilitate good participation from frequent WG contributors and lots
   of local participation (first-time attendees often want to
   participate again in the future and may become our next generation of

   It is also important to rotate locations so that the participation of
   new people will increase.

   The working environment should enable participants to do their
   business without too much outside interference.

2.5.  Attendance Limitation and Visas

   The country hosting the event should not limit the attendance for any
   participant.  Places in the world where a significant number of
   contributors can't go (or get to without doing a lot of work) should
   be rejected as candidates to host the IETF.

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria     January 2006

   The average time that is required to issue a visitor visa suitable
   for a short-term visit for IETF business needs to be confirmed.  If
   this time is not predictable in advance and measurable in a small
   number of months, that itself is a barrier to participation.

   The IAD must make special considerations if the visa requirements are
   so stringent that it is extremely difficult or even impossible for
   some participants to attend.

   The host country should not have unreasonable visa regulations.  That
   is, either visas should not be required for most participants, or, if
   they are required, they should be obtainable at low cost and
   shouldn't take any unnecessary overhead from the organization or the

   Citizens of certain countries may have difficulty in obtaining visas
   for political reasons.  The IASA should take all possible steps to
   ensure that official governmental support is available for such

   Furthermore, explicit requirements and procedures should be worked
   out in advance, coordinated with the host country government, and
   posted in the IETF meeting web page.

   If a particular country refuses to cooperate with the IETF in setting
   up procedures for a meeting in their country, this should be posted
   on the IETF meetings web page so that this problem can be considered
   when future venues are selected.

2.6.  Decision and Reporting

   The IASA, acting through the IAD and the Secretariat, has the power
   of the final decision about meeting venues and hosts.  The IASA
   should consult with the IETF Chair, the IESG, the IAB and the
   volunteer team as necessary.

   Despite the need for confidentiality, the IETF should be somehow
   informed about generals aspects of the evaluation criteria as to why
   a venue/location is or is not adequate.  Therefore, some form of open
   report should be produced after each venue is evaluated.

3.  Logistic Criteria for Venue Selection

   The average attendance at an IETF meeting is about 1,300 people.
   However, this may reach up to 2,300 people in some circumstances (for
   instance, depending on the meeting location).

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria     January 2006

   Therefore, the suggested venue meeting room capacity is calculated
   for about 1,600 people: a meeting space of about 60,000 square feet
   or 5,500 square meters.

3.1.  Meeting Rooms

   The following table shows the approximate needs for meeting rooms and
   their expected size, including the usual setup time a few days before
   the meeting.  This represents only a basic guideline for minimum

    | Room |  Cap |  M.  | W | T | F | S | S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
    | Term |      |  464 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
    |  NOC |      |  93  | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
    | Stor |      |  65  | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |
    | IETF |      |  93  |   | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |
    | Staf |      |  65  |   | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |
    | Host |      |  65  |   | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |
    | Reg. |      |  93  |   | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |
    | Rec. |  900 |  770 |   |   |   |   | X |   |   |   |   |   |   |
    | Meet |  30t |  63  |   |   |   |   | X |   |   |   |   |   |   |
    | Meet |  40t |  63  |   |   |   |   | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |
    | Meet | 100t |  111 |   |   |   |   | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |
    | Meet | 200t |  204 |   |   |   |   | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |
    | Meet | 200t |  204 |   |   |   |   | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |
    | Meet | 300t |  260 |   |   |   |   | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |
    | Meet | 300t |  260 |   |   |   |   | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |
    | Meet | 300t |  260 |   |   |   |   | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |
    | Meet | 500t |  390 |   |   |   |   | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |
    | Meet | 500t |  390 |   |   |   |   | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |
    | Meet | 40hs |  195 |   |   |   | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |
    | Meet | 20hs |  73  |   |   |   | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |
    |  Brk |      | 1391 |   |   |   |   | X | X | X | X | X | X |   |
    | Plen | 1500 |  139 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | X | X |   |   |

                         Meeting room requirements

                                  Table 1


   o  Room Name/Usage (Terminal Room, NOC Room, Storage Room, IETF
      Office, Staff Lounge, Host Lounge, Registration Area, Reception,
      Meeting Room, AM/PM Breaks, Plenary).

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria     January 2006

   o  Room Capacity Requirement (People for Reception, Theater for
      Meeting Rooms, Hollow Square for last two meeting rooms).  Plenary
      is 1500 Theater.

   o  Room Size in Square Meters.

   o  Wednesday, Tuesday, Friday, Saturday (meeting setup).  Sunday,
      Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday (meeting).  Saturday
      (end of meeting).

   Obviously, these figures could change from meeting to meeting and are
   only a guideline.  Indeed, over time the space in the meeting rooms
   is becoming too small, and this should be considered in the future.
   Adequate planning will take in consideration change in participant's
   interests in different work areas, which may create logistic troubles
   when configuring each specific meeting agenda.  Additional space
   allows a more convenient working environment for participants.

   Note that some meeting rooms can be used for several functions,
   according to the meeting schedule.  For example, the plenary meeting
   room could be used only when the other sessions aren't underway, and
   breaks could be taken in the registration area in the foyer.

   For some of the meeting rooms, such as the storage and NOC, multiple
   keys should be available so that they can be adequately distributed
   to the relevant staff.

   All meeting rooms should have a sufficient number of power sockets
   and cords for connecting the laptops of about 80% of the expected

   When conference facilities are used instead of meeting rooms in
   hotels, it may be necessary to increase the security when there are
   too many entrances.  Some additional technical issues may also arise
   according to previous experience, such as access to wiring closets or
   AV facilities.

   Rooms are generally held on a 24-hour basis, and it is highly
   recommended that they may be used at any time without restrictions,
   except for the time required for cleaning service.  In certain
   places, this could be a cost issue and may not be convenient.  This
   may be the case when using conference facilities.

   However, from the IETF perspective, the rooms generally do not need
   to be available on a 24-hour basis (with the exception of the
   terminal room), but removing and reinstalling cabling, access points
   or other equipment, should not be required by the venue.

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria     January 2006

   Regarding the rooms availability and considering the variability of
   them, if we define "access" as the ability to enter set up a room
   (e.g., to plug in equipment) but not necessarily to occupy it, it
   should be possible to get access to the meeting room at least 12
   hours prior to holding a meeting in that room.

3.2.  Other Venue Considerations

   There should be reasonable seating space in open areas outside the
   meeting rooms, but not far removed from them, for impromptu hallway
   discussions and such.  Power outlets should also be available in
   those areas.  Apart to the terminal room, it may be convenient, if
   possible, to have some "quiet" rooms, where people can go to read and
   think in peace.

   The venue should also provide adequate space for participants to take
   refreshments during breaks, in a comfortable way.

   The technical team should review the security of the location; for
   example, placement of cameras in critical locations should be

   Access to a loading dock and a pallet jack will facilitate the
   receipt of network gear and other materials used in the meeting.

   The NOC should set up a router on-site before the meeting, in order
   to test everything in advance.  It is extremely important that the
   location of this equipment be accessible for the NOC.

   The venue's wiring plan (power and data) should be fully available up
   front as part of the evaluation and during the meeting, with
   immediate access to control rooms (for example, to make sure that if
   a circuit trips, it may be flipped back on almost immediately).

   The venue needs to be wheelchair accessible.  The host should also be
   aware of other possible attendees' handicaps.  Some regular attendees
   are blind, hypoglycemic, diabetic, or afflicted with any number of
   other handicaps.  Some attendees may have concerns about the
   availability (and even the legality) of the drugs they need.  There
   are countries in which possession of some drugs (even with a
   prescription) might get a person in serious trouble.  Some
   information from the host in this regard is very welcome.

   Weather conditions should not be prohibitive, and the movement of
   attendees in likely weather conditions to and from the airport,
   venue, and suggested hotels should be considered.

   Similarly, the venue's air conditioning or heating capacity should be

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft    IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria     January 2006

   adequate according to the expected attendance and external weather
   conditions, including humidity and altitude.  The host should
   consider the effect when 80% of the attendees use their laptops, each
   of which will typically dissipate 150 to 200 watts of heat.
   Obviously, this does not mean that the air conditioning or heating
   system must be on all the time; on the contrary, thermostats should
   work automatically in order to allow a comfortable working

3.3.  Sleeping Rooms

   The approximate requirements for sleeping rooms will be a block of
   around 5.515 rooms/nights.  This is only a generic guideline.

   The following table shows the needs for sleeping rooms, including a
   setup time a few days before the meeting.

     | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |  Mon  |  Tue  | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
     |  5  | 100 | 450 | 980 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 970 | 770 | 200 |  40 |

                        Sleeping room requirements

                                  Table 2

3.4.  Local Transportation

   The location of the venue (and of the main hotels if the venue is not
   a big hotel) should allow quick movement of the attendees between the
   sleeping and meeting rooms.  It is strongly suggested that the
   meeting rooms be located in the main hotel (which would have a
   minimum capacity of about 60% of the required sleeping rooms).

   If the meeting rooms are not located in the same place as the main
   block of sleeping rooms, inexpensive public transportation should
   allow the movement of 100% of the attendees in less than 30 minutes'
   time; meeting timing and usual public transport utilization by the
   locals should be considered.  This may be the case when the meeting
   is being hosted in a convention center instead of at a big hotel
   (which may not be available in some locations).  This is becoming a
   frequent practice for a number of meetings.

   Ideally, a number of alternative hotels will be within walking
   distance (10 to 15 minutes) of the event venue.

   If the IETF has to recommend several "official" hotels, which is

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft    IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria     January 2006

   often the case, especially when the main hotel is insufficient to
   house most of the participants, some sort of free-of-charge network
   connectivity should be provided at all the official hotels.

3.5.  Airport/Wide-Area Transportation

   The airport and other means of wide-area transportation need to have
   adequate capacity and decent connections.

   There should be easy and inexpensive transportation from the nearby
   airports to the meeting site.  Typically, an airport should be less
   than 50 kilometers' distance from the site, and public transportation
   and affordable taxi services should be available.

   The airport should have a capacity adequate for the number of
   attendees arriving and departing; for example, with sufficient number
   of scheduled flights, and without bottlenecks due to local
   immigration practices.

   Traveling to the venue should be possible with a maximum of one
   flight hop from a major hub.  The airport must have several
   international carriers.

   Detailed instructions for transportation and of the approximate cost
   to get to and from hotels should be made available.

3.6.  Food Logistics

   The attendees (1,600 to 2,000 people) should be able to get lunch and
   dinner, according to the meeting timing, in a maximum of 60 to 90
   minutes, including transit time back and forth.

   In general, a variety of restaurants will be required within walking
   distance, allowing reservation of small and medium tables.  Special
   requirements (such as vegetarian food, among other choices) must be

   As a general consideration, meals must be available when the IETF
   needs them.  If what this section specifies is not completely
   possible, a combination of off-site restaurants and on-site delivery
   of good-quality sandwiches (including vegetarian and alternative
   choices) could be acceptable.

   A list of places that can deliver food to the venue would be helpful.

   Places for casual meetings, such as BAR BoFs, should also be

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft    IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria     January 2006

3.7.  Technical and Regulatory Considerations

   It should be possible for the IETF participants to rent cell phones.
   This is especially relevant for the secretariat/registration/NOC

   It should be possible to know a country's specific technological
   regulations up front, especially those that could affect the
   provision of the network and equipment often used by the staff and
   the attendees.  For instance, some countries do not authorize 802.11a

3.8.  Health Considerations

   Any high risk to health for a high number of participants (such as
   malaria, other infections or mandatory health checks at immigration)
   should be considered a barrier.

   It would be acceptable if the vaccination of the participants did not
   adversely affect the attendance.  In any case, appropriate
   recommendations about vaccinations and mandatory health checks should
   be provided ahead the meeting, far enough in advance for the
   participants to take appropriate measures.

   Obviously, these recommendations are only guidelines for the
   attendees to check according to their own specific situations.
   Often, health considerations will depend on a number of factors, such
   as a traveler's nationality, where the traveler has been recently,
   where the traveler intends to go within the destination country, the
   length of the stay, and even the mode of transportation into the
   destination country.

4.  Logistic Risks and Contingencies

   Physical safety and security threats at the location must be
   evaluated.  It should be understood that the attendees come from all
   over the world.  Any specific threats must be addressed in advance
   (hiring guards, etc.).

   Appropriate warnings (e.g., about local crime risks) must be given.

   An emergency response plan and risk analysis must be in place
   throughout the meeting, covering issues such as food intoxication,
   medical problems, theft, and indications when something is stolen.

   A red-colored paper should be included in each participant's
   registration envelope, with details about the evacuation plan.  It

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft    IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria     January 2006

   should also include a clear statement regarding the situation in case
   of cancellation (for instance, attendee costs versus committed costs
   with the host/hotel, retention of meeting fees).

   An evaluation of war and terrorism risks and countermeasures is also
   required.  The location should have no exceptional security
   considerations on this regard.

   Appropriate insurance should be investigated for IETF meetings.

   Adequate contingency plans should be available for those risks.

5.  Technical Requirements and Contingencies

   IETF meetings have strict requirements concerning to the network that
   need to be evaluated altogether which the criteria described in this

   Similarly, there are other important technical details which should
   also be considered.

   A venue can perfectly match all the criteria described in this
   document and however be inadequate for deploying the required network
   (wired, wireless) and to match other required technical details.

   The failure to comply with the technical requirements and have
   adequate network/technical contingency plans, is obviously a very
   important handicap to accept a venue as a good candidate.

   For simplicity and in order to make easy the understanding of non-
   technical and technical/network aspects, the later ones are described
   in a separate document "IETF Meeting Network and Other Technical
   Requirements" [2].

6.  Timing and Planning

   IETF meeting dates should be planned sufficiently in advance, looking
   to the calendars of related meetings (in terms of people attending
   them), in order to avoid having meetings clash.

   The IETF is a meeting of a considerable size, which often makes it
   difficult to find a reasonable venue in a short time.  The general
   recommendation is that any candidate venue should be explored and
   surveyed with a leading time not less than 24 months' time ahead of
   the expected meeting dates.  Similarly, the final decision for the
   selected venue should be made no later than 18 months in advance of

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft    IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria     January 2006

   the meeting's starting date.

   Note that network setup and testing often require around one week in
   order to ensure an appropriate and quality deployment.

   In order to provide the best conditions for meals, the meeting
   schedule should be adjusted appropriately according to local habits.

7.  Venue Acceptance/Rejection Report

   Despite the information provided by the proponent of a given venue
   (and before making a final decision about its acceptance or
   rejection), the IAD should make an on-site survey for venues that
   seem to pass the criteria defined in this document.

   The on-site survey report will compare the selection criteria against
   the proposal information and the actual on-site findings, describing
   possible discrepancies or issues that may need further consideration
   (even if this document doesn't include them as part of the criteria

   A "site report" for the selected site is important for future
   planning.  A report is also important for "failed" sites, possibly
   describing them in an anonymous way such as "X, Y, and Z were also
   considered but had to be postponed or abandoned due to lack of
   available space, sponsor agreement, technical considerations, local
   conditions, etc.".

8.  Process and Openness

   In order to demonstrate compliance with the IETF meeting venue
   selection criteria, the main information related to a site proposal
   will be made publicly available on the IETF web site, excluding some
   or all of the negotiation's confidential issues that could be
   subjected to the sponsor or host's decision.

   A summary of the information has to be made public regardless of
   whether the site is finally selected.  If agreed to by the proponent,
   this summary could be highly detailed, including all the options
   being considered (such as a given city and several venues in the same
   city).  Alternatively, it can be made available without citing the
   city, but instead making clear the reasons why it has not been
   selected, in order to help future proponents foresee similar issues.

   This will not only help the openness of the process but also as
   collective knowledge help a better organization and solution of

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft    IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria     January 2006

   issues for future meetings.

   In principle, details should not be hidden from the community
   regarding the proponent and site options, and this should be the
   overall rule for the publication of the details.  However, once a
   venue is selected, there may be contractual bindings that may not
   allow all the negotiation details to be disclosed.  Obviously, this
   withholding will be restricted to a minimum.

   The published information will describe what the proponent offered
   and report the on-site survey, which should be done by the IAD before
   the final acceptance or rejection of a proposed venue.

9.  Security Considerations

   This document does not have any protocol-related security

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not have any specific IANA considerations.

11.  Acknowledgements

   The author would like to acknowledge the inputs of Adrian Farrel,
   Albert Vezza, Andrew McGregor, Avri Doria, Bill Sommerfeld, Brett
   Thorson, Brian Carpenter, Daniel Senie, Dave Crocker, Ed Juskevicius,
   Eliot Lear, Elwyn Davies, Eric Gray, Eric Rosen, Frank Ellermann,
   Gene Gaines, Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Hui Deng, James M. Polo, Jari
   Arkko, Jim Martin, Joe Abley, Joel Jaeggli, John Loughney, Julien
   Maisonneuve, Karen Odonoghue, Ken Raeburn, Marcia Beaulieu, Marshall
   Eubanks, Melinda Shore, Ole Jacobsen, Paul Aitken, Pekka Savola,
   Phillip Hallam-Baker, Randy Presuhn, Ray Pelletier, Sam Hartman and
   Scott W Brim.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

12.2.  Informative References

   [1]  Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF Administrative
        Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC 4071, April 2005.

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft    IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria     January 2006

   [2]  Palet, J., "IETF Meeting Network and Other Technical
        Requirements", January 2006,

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft    IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria     January 2006

Author's Address

   Jordi Palet Martinez
   Molino de la Navata, 75
   La Navata - Galapagar - Madrid
   E-28420 - Spain

   Phone: +34 91 151 81 99
   Fax:   +34 91 151 81 98
   Email: jordi.palet@consulintel.es

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft    IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria     January 2006

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Palet                     Expires July 20, 2006                [Page 18]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.120, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/