Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Everyone seems to be pointing to the wrong version
of the document. Here's the correct URL:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-01.txt

The -01 version is a major improvement from the initial
ocument, I at least found it useful. Some comments below,
however:

>   Meals must be available when IETF needs
>   them.  If this is not possible, a combination of this with the
>   delivering of good quality sandwiches (including vegetarian and
>   alternative choices) on-site could be acceptable.
>
I think we had a good experience in Paris from adjusting
our schedules to the local style. I would suggest softening
the above a bit.

>   Is expected that the nearby airport is located no more than 50
>   Kilometers from the main hotels, and again inexpensive public
>   transportation is available.
>
>   The airport should be of such capacity to accommodate 60% of the
>   attendees arriving and departing on the same day, in addition to the
>   usual number of passengers.
>
>   The traveling to the venue location should be possible with a maximum
>   of one flight hop from a major hub.  The airport must have a
>   diversity of international carriers.
>
The beginning of the document is very clear that there's
a large number of criteria and that they should be considered
together, rather than blindly following them as rules. The
above items should probably be written in a slightly less
strict style, e.g., "It is expected that there's easy transportation
from the nearby airports to the meeting site. Typically
this implies an airport under 50 kilometer's distance and
the availability of public transportation and/or affordable
taxi services, depending on local situation."

Also, airport capacity is usually not the bottleneck from
what I can see, its mostly (a) sufficient number of scheduled
flights and (b) local immigration practises.

>4.  Technical criteria for the venue selection
>
It seems that some of this is related to the meeting site
itself and some to the set up the host, secretariat, and
volunteers arrange on the site. For instance, wiring vs.
dhcp. Might be useful to separate these.

>   Physical safety and security threats at the location must be
>   evaluated, understanding 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, indications when something is stolen, etc.
>
>   A red colored paper should be included in the participants
>   registration envelope with details about the evacuation plan.  It
>   should also include a clear statement regarding the situation in case
>   of cancelation (for instance, attendee costs versus committed costs
>   with the host/hotel, retention of meeting fees, etc.).
>
>   An evaluation of was and terrorism risk and measures is also
>   required.  The location should have no exceptional security
>   considerations on this regard.
>
>   Appropriate insurance should be investigated for IETF meetings.
>  
>
This is an overkill. I think its useful to consider security
as a factor when deciding the meeting site (i.e., no Baghdad
IETF.) But I think we can rely on people finding out what
the local issues are mostly on their own just like other
travellers do, and I'm sure if there's a specific issue this
will be talked about in the IETF discussion list. An evacuation
chart might be useful, but in many cases this would essentially
be the meeting site map that we get anyway, as long as
it has some clearly marked "exit" symbols. As for the
insurance, the participants surely have insurance for
their own purposes. Not sure if we need more than that.
The secretariat needs to cover their employees, of course.
Cancellation: ietf registration and hotel registration are
handling this already adequately, I think.

>9.  Process and Openness
>
I'd like to see a "site report" for the selected site, but
I'm not sure we can really publish much about the
"failed" site decisions. We could say "X, Y, and Z were
also considered but had to be postponed or abandoned
due to lack of available space, sponsor agreement, and
local conditions".

--Jari


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf