mtgvenue

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      E. Lear, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8718                                 Cisco Systems
Intended status:
BCP: 226                                                    January 2020
Category: Best Current Practice                     June 14, 2018
Expires: December 16, 2018
ISSN: 2070-1721

              IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process
          draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-16

Abstract

   The IASA has responsibility IETF Administration Support Activity (IASA) is responsible for
   arranging the selection and operation of the IETF plenary meeting Venue
   selection and operation.
   venue.  This memo specifies IETF community requirements for meeting
   venues, including hotels and meeting room space.  It also directs the IASA
   to make available additional process documents that describe the
   current meeting selection process.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list  It represents the consensus of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 16, 2018.
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8718.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Venue Selection Objectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Core Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Venue Selection Non-Objectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5 Non-objectives
   3.  Meeting Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Mandatory Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Important Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Other Consideraitons  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9 Considerations
   4.  Documentation Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.2.
   9.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Acknowledgements
   Contributors
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   The Internet IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) has
   responsibility [RFC8711] is
   responsible for arranging the selection and operation of the IETF
   plenary meeting venue selection and
   operation. venue.  The purpose of this document is to guide the
   IASA in their selection of regions, cities, facilities, and hotels.
   The IASA
   applies should apply this guidance at different points in the
   process in an attempt to faithfully meet the requirements of the IETF
   community.  We specify a set of general criteria for venue selection
   and several requirements for transparency and community consultation.

   It remains the responsibility of the IASA to apply their best
   judgment.  The IASA accepts input and feedback both during the
   consultation process and later (for instance instance, when there are changes
   in the situation at a chosen location).  Any appeals remain subject
   to the provisions of BCP101 [RFC4071].  As always, the  The community is encouraged
   to provide direct feedback about the IASA's performance to the IETF
   Administration LLC, the Nominations Committee (NOMCOM), or the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and IAB
   regarding the discharge (IESG).  Any reviews of IASA
   decisions remain subject to the IASA's performance.

   Four provisions of Section 4.7 of
   [RFC8711] (BCP 101).

   The following four terms describe the places for which the IETF
   contracts services:

   Venue:
      This is an
      An umbrella term for the city, meeting resources resources, and guest room
      resources.

   Facility:
      The building that houses meeting rooms and associated resources.
      It may also house an IETF Hotel.

   IETF Hotels:
      One or more hotels, in close proximity to the Facility, where the
      IETF guest room block allocations are negotiated and where network
      services managed by the IASA (e.g., the "IETF" SSID) are in use.

   Overflow Hotels:
      One or more hotels, usually in close proximity to the Facility,
      where the IETF has negotiated a group room rate for the purposes
      of the meeting.  Of particular note is that Overflow Hotels usually are
      not usually connected to the IETF network and do not use network
      services managed by the IASA.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Venue Selection Objectives

2.1.  Core Values

   Some IETF values pervade the selection process.  These often are often
   applicable to multiple requirements listed in this document.  They
   are not limited to  At a
   minimum, they include the following, but at minimum include: following:

   Why we meet? meet:
      We meet to pursue the IETF's mission [RFC3935], [RFC3935].  This is partly
      done by advancing the development of Internet-Drafts and RFCs.  We
      also seek to facilitate attendee participation in multiple topics
      and to enable cross-pollination of ideas and technologies.

   Inclusiveness:
      We would like to facilitate the onsite on-site or remote participation of
      anyone who wants to be involved.  Widespread participation
      contributes to the diversity of perspectives represented in the
      working sessions sessions.

      Every country has limits on who it will permit within its borders.
      However
      However, the IETF seeks to:

      1.  Minimize situations in which onerous entry regulations
          inhibit, discourage, or prevent participants from attending
          meetings, or
          meetings; failing that to distribute that, meeting locations are to be
          distributed such that onerous entry regulations are not always
          experienced by the same attendees; and

      2.  Avoid meeting in countries with laws that effectively exclude
          people on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender,
          sexual orientation, national origin, citizenship, or gender
          identity.

   Where we meet:
      We meet in different locations globally, global locations, in order to spread the
      difficulty and cost of travel among active participants, balancing
      travel time and expense across the regions in which participants
      are based. based in various
      regions.  Our regional location policy is articulated in
      [I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy].
      [RFC8719].

   Internet Access:
      As an organization, we write specifications for the Internet, and
      we use it heavily.  Meeting attendees need unfiltered access to
      the general Internet and their corporate networks.  "Unfiltered
      access"
      access", in this case case, means that all forms of communication are
      allowed.  This includes, but is not limited to, access to
      corporate networks via encrypted VPNs from the meeting Facility
      and Hotels, including Overflow Hotels.  We also need open network
      access available at high enough data rates, at the meeting
      Facility, to support our work, including the which includes support of remote
      participation.  Beyond this, we are the first users of our own
      technology.  Any filtering may cause a problem with that
      technology development.  In some cases, local laws may require
      some filtering.  We seek to avoid such locales without reducing
      the pool of cities to an unacceptable level by stating a number of
      criteria below, one mandatory and others important, to allow for
      the case where local laws may require filtering in some
      circumstances.

   Focus:
      We meet to have focused technical discussions.  These are not
      limited to scheduled breakout sessions, although of course those
      are important.  They also happen over meals or drinks, through a
      specific type of non-session that we call a "Bar BOF", or in side
      meetings.  Environments that are noisy or distracting prevent that or
      reduce
      its effectiveness, the effectiveness of these sessions and are therefore less
      desirable as a meeting
      Facility.[RFC6771] Facility [RFC6771].

   Economics:
      Meeting attendees participate as individuals.  While many are
      underwritten by employers or sponsors, many are self-funded.  In
      order to reduce participation costs and travel effort, we
      therefore seek locations that provide convenient budget
      alternatives for food and lodging, and which that minimize travel
      segments from major airports to the Venue.  Within reason, one's
      budget should not be a barrier to accommodation.

   Least Astonishment and Openness:
      Regular participants should not be surprised by meeting Venue
      selections, particularly when it comes to locales.  To avoid
      surprise, the venue selection process, as with all other IETF
      processes, should be as open as practicable.  It should be
      possible for the community to engage in discussion early to
      express its views on prospective selections, so that the community
      and the IASA can exchange views as to appropriateness long before
      a venue contract is considered.

2.2.  Venue Selection Non-Objectives Non-objectives

   IETF meeting Venues are not selected or declined with the explicit
   purposes of:

   Politics:
      Endorsing or condemning particular countries, political paradigms,
      laws, regulations, or policies.

   Maximal attendance:
      While the IETF strives to be as inclusive as possible possible, both online
      and in person, maximal meeting attendance in and of itself is not
      a goal.  It would defeat a key goal of meeting if active
      contributors with differing points of view did not have the
      opportunity to resolve their disagreements, no matter how full the
      rooms.

   Tourism:
      Variety in site-seeing experiences.

3.  Meeting Criteria

   This section contains the criteria for IETF meetings.  It is broken
   down into three subsections: mandatory criteria, criteria (Section 3.1),
   important criteria, criteria (Section 3.2), and other considerations, considerations
   (Section 3.3), each as explained below.

3.1.  Mandatory Criteria

   If criteria in this subsection cannot be met, a particular location
   is unacceptable for selection, and the IASA MUST NOT enter into a
   contract.  Should the IASA learn that a location can no longer can meet a
   mandatory requirement after having entered into a contract, it will
   inform the community and address the matter on a case by case case-by-case basis.

   o

   *  The Facility MUST provide sufficient space in an appropriate
      layout to accommodate the expected number of participants, leadership, and
      support staff expected to attend that meeting.

   o

   *  The Facility and IETF Hotels MUST provide wheelchair access to
      accommodate the number of people who are anticipated to require
      it.

   o

   *  It MUST be possible to provision Internet Access to the Facility
      and IETF Hotels that allows those attending in person to utilize
      the Internet for all their IETF, business, and day to day day-to-day needs;
      as well as sufficient bandwidth
      in addition, there must be sufficient bandwidth and access for
      remote attendees.
      This includes,  Provisions include, but is are not limited to,
      native and unmodified IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, global reachability, and global
      reachability; there may be no additional limitation that would
      materially impact their Internet use.  To ensure availability, it
      MUST be possible to provision redundant paths to the Internet.

3.2.  Important Criteria

   The criteria in this subsection are not mandatory, but they are still
   highly significant.  It may be necessary to trade trade-off one or more of
   these criteria off against others.  A Venue that meets more of these
   criteria is is, on the whole whole, preferable than to another that meets fewer of
   these criteria.  Requirements classed as Important can also be
   balanced across Venue selections for multiple meetings.  When a
   particular requirement in this section cannot be met, met but the Venue is
   selected anyway, the IASA MUST notify the community at the time of
   the venue announcement.  Furthermore, it may be appropriate for the
   IASA to assist those who, as a result, have been inconvenienced in
   some way.

3.2.1.  Venue City Criteria

   o

   The following requirements relate to the Venue city.

   *  Travel to the Venue is acceptable based on cost, time, and burden
      for participants traveling from multiple regions.  It is
      anticipated that the burden borne will be generally be shared over
      the course of multiple years.

   o

   *  The Venue is assessed as favorable for obtaining a host and
      sponsors.  That is, the Meeting is in a location that in which it is
      possible and probable to find a host and sponsors.

   o

   *  Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are likely
      to be such that an overwhelming majority of participants who wish
      to do so can attend.  The term "travel barriers" is to be read
      broadly by the IASA in the context of whether a successful meeting
      can be had.

   o

   *  Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this Venue are
      acceptable.

   o

   *  The selection of the venue comports with
      [I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy]. the practices described
      in [RFC8719].

3.2.2.  Basic Venue Criteria

   The following requirements relate to the Venue and Facilities.

   The IETF operates internationally and adjusts to local requirements.
   Facilities selected for IETF Meetings meetings SHALL have provided written
   assurance that they are in compliance with local health, safety safety, and
   accessibility laws and regulations, and that they will remain in
   compliance throughout our stay.

   In addition:

   o

   *  There are sufficient places (e.g., a mix of hallways, bars,
      meeting rooms, and restaurants) for people to hold ad hoc
      conversations and group discussions in the combination of spaces
      offered by the facilities, hotels hotels, and bars/restaurants in the
      surrounding area, within walking distance (5-10 minutes).

   o

   *  The cost of guest rooms, meeting space, meeting food and beverage
      is affordable, within the norms of business travel.

   o

   *  The Facility is accessible accessible, or reasonable accommodations can be
      made to allow access access, by people with disabilities.

3.2.3.  Technical Meeting Needs

   The following criteria relate to technical meeting needs.

   o

   *  The Facility's support technologies and services -- network,
      audio-video, etc. -- are sufficient for the anticipated activities
      at the meeting, or the Facility is willing to add such
      infrastructure
      infrastructure, or these support technologies and services might
      be provided by a third party, all at no -- or at an acceptable --
      cost to the IETF.

   o

   *  The IETF Hotel(s) Hotels directly provide, or else permit and facilitate,
      the delivery of a high performance, robust, unfiltered unfiltered, and
      unmodified Internet service for the public areas and guest rooms,
      and that rooms;
      this service is to be included in the cost of the room.

3.2.4.  Hotel Needs

   The following criteria relate to IETF Hotels.

   o

   *  The IETF Hotel(s) Hotels are within close proximity to each other and the
      Facility.

   o

   *  The guest rooms at the IETF Hotel(s) Hotels are sufficient in number to
      house 1/3 one-third or more of projected meeting attendees.

   o

   *  Overflow Hotels can be placed under contract, within convenient
      travel time to and from the Facility and at a variety of guest
      room rates.

   o

   *  The Facility environs include budget hotels within convenient
      travel time, cost, and effort.

   o

   *  The IETF Hotel(s) Hotels are accessible by people with disabilities.  While
      we mandate wheelchair accessibility, other forms are
      important, important and
      should be provided for to the extent possible, possible based on anticipated
      needs of the community.

   o

   *  At least one IETF Hotel or the Facility has a space for use as a
      lounge, conducive to planned and ad hoc meetings and chatting, as
      well as a space for working online.  There are tables with
      seating, convenient for small meetings with laptops.  These can be
      at an open bar or casual restaurant.  Preferably the lounge area
      is centrally located, permitting easy access to participants.

3.2.5.  Food and Beverage

   The following criteria relate to food and beverage.

   o

   *  The Facility environs, which includes include both onsite, on-site as well as areas
      within a reasonable walking distance or conveniently accessible by
      a short taxi ride or by local public transportation, have
      convenient and inexpensive choices for meals that can accommodate
      a wide range of dietary requirements.

   o

   *  A range of attendee's attendees' health-related and religion-related dietary
      requirements can be satisfied with robust and flexible onsite on-site
      service or through access to an adequate grocery.

   o grocery store.

   *  The Facility environs include grocery shopping that will
      accommodate a wide range of dietary requirements, within a
      reasonable walking distance, distance or conveniently accessible by a short
      taxi, bus, or subway ride, ride from the Facility and IETF Hotels.

3.3.  Other Consideraitons Considerations

   The following considerations are desirable, but they are not as
   important as the preceding requirements, requirements and thus should not be traded off
   traded-off for them.

   o

   *  We have something of a preference for an IETF meeting to be under
      "One Roof".  That Roof"; that is, qualified meeting space and guest rooms are
      available in the same facility.

   o

   *  It is desirable for Overflow Hotels to provide reasonable,
      reliable, unfiltered Internet service for the public areas and
      guest rooms, and that for this service be included in the cost of the
      room.

   o

   *  It is desirable to enter into a multi-event contract with the
      Facility and IETF Hotels or associated hotel chains in case such a
      contract will either reduce administrative costs, reduce direct attendee
      costs, or both.

   o  Particularly when

   *  When we are considering a city for the first time, it is
      particularly desirable to have someone participate in the site visit who is familiar with both the
      locale and the IETF. IETF participate in the site visit.  Such a person
      can provide guidance regarding safety, location of local services, and
      understanding
      the best ways to get to and from the Venue, and local customs, as
      well as identify how our requirements are met.

4.  Documentation Requirements

   The IETF Community works best when it is well informed.  This memo
   does not specify processes nor who has responsibility for fulfilling
   our requirements for meetings.  Nevertheless, both of these aspects
   are important.  Therefore, the IASA SHALL publicly document and keep
   current both a list of roles and responsibilities relating to IETF
   meetings, as well as the selection processes they use in order to
   fulfill the requirements of the community.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This memo asks the IANA for document has no new parameters.

   [The RFC-Editor may remove this section prior to publicaiton.] IANA actions.

6.  Security Considerations

   This note proposes no protocols, protocols and therefore introduces no new
   protocol insecurities.

7.  Privacy Considerations

   Different places have different constraints on individual privacy.
   The requirements in this memo are intended to provide for some
   limited protections.  As meetings are announced, the IASA SHALL
   inform the IETF of any limitations to privacy they have become aware
   of in their investigations.  For example, participants would be
   informed of any regulatory authentication or logging requirements.

8.  Contributors

   The following people provided substantial text contributions to this
   memo:

   Fred Baker
   Email: fred.ietf@gmail.com

   Fred originated this work.

   Ray Pelletier
   Email: Rpelletier13@gmail.com

   Laura Nugent
   Association Management Solutions
   Email: lnugent@amsl.com

   Lou Berger
   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
   Email: lberger@labn.net

   Ole Jacobsen
   The Internet Protocol Journal
   EMail: olejacobsen@me.com

   Jim Martin
   INOC
   Email: jim@inoc.com

9.  Acknowledgements

   Additional contributions came from Jari Arkko, Scott Bradner, Alissa
   Cooper, Dave Crocker, Jordi Palet Martinez, Andrew Sullivan, and
   other participants in the mtgvenue working group.  Those listed in
   this section or as contributors may or may not agree with the content
   of this memo.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy]
              Krishnan, S., "High level guidance for the meeting policy
              of the IETF", draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-06 (work
              in progress), May 2018.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4071]  Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the
              IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
              RFC 4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4071>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

10.2.

   [RFC8719]  Krishnan, S., "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy
              of the IETF", BCP 226, RFC 8719, DOI 10.17487/RFC8719,
              January 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8719>.

9.  Informative References

   [RFC3935]  Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
              BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>.

   [RFC6771]  Eggert, L. and G. Camarillo, "Considerations for Having a
              Successful "Bar BOF" Side Meeting", RFC 6771,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6771, October 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6771>.

Appendix A.  Change Log

   [RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication.]

   2016-01-12:  Initial version

   2016-01-21:  Update to reflect https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/
      VenueSelectionCriteriaJan2016.pdf

   [RFC8711]  Haberman, B., Hall, J., and
      https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/VenueSelectionProcess11Jan16.pdf,
      accessed from https://iaoc.ietf.org/private/privatemeetings.html.

   2016-02-23:  Reorganize and capture IAOC Meetings Committee
      discussions.

   2016-03-03:  Final from Design Team.

   2016-03-17:  First update incorporating mtgvenue@ietf.org comments

   2016-05-20  Updated in accordance with editing by Laura Nugent, Dave
      Crocker, Lou Berger, Fred Baker, and others.

   posting as working group draft  August 2, 2016

   Reorganized per Alissa Cooper outline  Work in progress.  In
      addition, contributors were re-organized to be authors.

   2016-10-28  Editor changeover.  Further alignment with guidance by
      Alissa Cooper, Andrew Sullivan and the mtgvenue working group.
      Many various changes.

   2016-11-16  Extensive editorial, format and polishing pass.  A few
      substance changes, including food section.

   2016-11-30  Additions based on working group meeting and off-list
      discussions; more editorial and format hacking.

   2016-12-24  Various clarifying bits to provide some glue between the
      high-level 'objectives' and the detailed criteria and roles, per
      suggestions fronm Lear.  Editorial changes, per 12/27 response to
      Cooper.  Refined uses of 'Facility' and 'Venue', per 12/4 response
      to Carpenter; also added Carpenter 'lounge' text.  Moved community
      consultation to a separate criterion; removed 'acceptable to J. Livingood, "Structure of
              the IETF Community from the 2 entries that had it.  Removed Post-
      Seroul Revisions and Text Carried Forward.

   2016-12-24  Address comments made on list by Stephen Farrell
      <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>.  Minor text change in Section 5.
      Replaced links in sections 5.3 and 5.5.

   2017-03-12  Add openness comment as requested by Stephen Farrell.
      Add statement about 4071 as proposed by Brian and modified by
      Jari.  Elaborated on what "unfiltered" means, based on discussion
      between Eliot and Stephen.  Preface to Section 5 as discussed
      between Lou and Stephen.  Slight editorial tweak to that by Eliot.
      IETF operates internationally, as proposed by Brian.

   2017-04-18  Add new introductory text.  Sharpen mandatory definition.
      Split first criteria into two, and reword them to be more
      actionable.  Remove net cash positive requirement.  Change many
      critera Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
              BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, January 2020,
              <https://rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.

Acknowledgements

   Contributions came from Mandatory to Important.  Remove consensus text.
      Modify chapeau.  Add some normative MUSTs in Section 5, Jari Arkko, Scott Bradner, Alissa Cooper,
   Dave Crocker, Jordi Palet Martinez, Andrew Sullivan, and
      restructure Section 5.5.  A bunch of other stuff as well.  Use
      diff.

   2017-05-14  Happy Mother's Day.  This version removes the tabular
      format of requirements, moves mandatory requirements up front,
      adds a desiderata section, adds a mandatory filtering requirement,
      consolidates introductory text, moves procedural requirements into
      Section 5, removes the definition of Headquarters Hotel, removes
      the MUST
   participants in late changes, and adds a desire for a local
      participant the MTGVENUE Working Group.  Those listed in site selection.

   2017-09-12  These are last call edits.  Big change is around Internet
      requirements.  Also, address Andrew Sullivan comments, as well this
   section or as
      SM comments.  Brian Carpenter big scrub on IAOC to IASA.

   2017-10-20  Final edits from WGLC based on Laura Nugent's review.
      Most are editorial for clarity.  Also, remove large table and link
      to contributors may or may not agree with the live copy.

   2018-01-10  Changes based on AD review.

   2018-02-02  Changes based on genart review and IETF last call.

   2018-05-07  Several versions of changes.  Based on reorg content of meetings
      committee, Section 4 and 5 moved out.  Also, final LC comments
      addressed.  In particular: no smoking added.  Reference to RFC8174
      added.  Reference
   this memo.

Contributors

   The following people provided substantial text contributions to meeting policy doc added.

   2018-05-11  Remove no smoking. this
   memo.  Specifically, Fred Baker originated this work.

   Fred Baker

   Email: fred.ietf@gmail.com

   Ray Pelletier

   Email: Rpelletier13@gmail.com

   Laura Nugent
   Association Management Solutions

   Email: lnugent@amsl.com

   Lou Berger
   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.

   Email: lberger@labn.net

   Ole Jacobsen
   The Internet Protocol Journal

   Email: olejacobsen@me.com

   Jim Martin
   INOC

   Email: jim@inoc.com

Author's Address

   Eliot Lear (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   Richtistrasse 7
   CH-CH-8304 Wallisellen  CH-8304
   Switzerland

   Phone: +41 44 878 9200
   Email: lear@cisco.com