Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jay, IESG colleagues,

I have not received a response to the questions I asked in June and
repeated in this message two weeks ago. I would still like to know where
the low water mark has been set, and I cannot see any reason why this
information could not be shared with the public.  Since it was used to make
this decision, I believe you should have the data to hand.

If you feel you cannot respond, please say why.

best regards,

Ted Hardie

On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 9:24 AM Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Jay,
>
> In my message of June 12, 2025, I asked the following clarifying question
> to the LLC's initial response:
>
> For clarity, do you believe the new lower bound to be that set by IETF
> 113, which is cited in the IESG's decision or the predicted attendance for
> China?  If I am interpreting things correctly, the onsite attendance for
> IETF 113  was 22% and this occurred as the pandemic lockdowns were just
> beginning to be eased. (from appendix D of the IESG decision).  The
> predicted attendance for the China meeting is 51% (from appendix E).
>
> I do not see a response to that question in the note you sent; can you
> provide that information?  Or was the response given elsewhere?  I believe
> that a specific answer here is needed to understand this part of your
> response:
>
> Based on this, the LLC Board assessed this support would continue well in
> excess of the lower water mark set by the IESG in their decision about IETF
> 125 and therefore an unambiguous decision.
>
> I believe the community deserves a more exact answer of where, exactly,
> the low water mark has been set.
>
> Your note gives as one reason for this decision:
>
> • Strong historical support in the venue – the past meeting in San
> Francisco was reasonably attended and financially well-supported through
> sponsorship (i.e., one of the few meetings around that time to not operate
> at a loss.
>
> I believe Leslie Daigle made the point at the plenary in Madrid that this
> assumed a continuity of experience that is not supported by most
> observations of the current state of play in the US.  I am surprised to see
> it in your response.
>
>
> Ted Hardie
> Wearing no hats
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 12:29 AM Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ted
>>
>> In addition to your original question, there were some more questions
>> posed during the plenary session in Madrid. In the answer below the Board
>> tries to answer them in the form of an FAQ and hopes thereby to clarify the
>> process they use when deciding about meeting locations.
>>
>> 1. How is this IETF 127 venue review different from the last time that a
>> meeting in San Francisco was moved (IETF 102 in 2018)
>>
>> The decision in 2018 was made at a time before the publication of BCP 226
>> (RFC 8178, RFC 8719 and RFC 9137), which sets out clear policy for the IETF
>> LLC on meeting criteria.  The LLC Board reassessed this meeting with
>> regards to the requirements of BCP 226 and concluded that it remains
>> consistent with the criteria in the BCP.
>>
>> 2. How did the LLC Board apply RFC 9137?
>>
>> RFC 9137 Considerations for Cancellation of IETF Meeting, says in Section
>> 3.1:
>>
>> > The IETF LLC is responsible for assessing the suitability of a venue
>> for an IETF meeting and is responsible for any reassessment in response to
>> a major event that leaves the prior conclusion in doubt.  If such an event
>> occurs more than fourteen weeks before the start of the schedule meeting,
>> it is deemed a non-emergency situation.
>>
>> The decision by the LLC Board to reconsider its decision was made in
>> response to a reconsideration request from multiple community participants
>> who were of the opinion that the change in border policy within the US
>> constitutes a major event that leaves the prior conclusion in doubt.
>>
>> However, while there are multiple reports of individuals that have been
>> detained or refused entry, the relatively small number as a proportion of
>> travellers and the specific circumstances of these incidents do not reach
>> the level of a major event. It is therefore the assessment of the LLC Board
>> that RFC 9137 does not apply as there has not been a major event that would
>> trigger it.
>>
>> 3. How did the LLC Board use the decision by the IESG on IETF 125
>> Shenzhen as part of this reassessment?
>>
>> The LLC Board is required to assess the viability of an IETF meeting by
>> looking at multiple aspects including financial and technical.  For IETF
>> 125, there were two concerns raised, one of which was that the number of
>> ‘core’ participants would be too low for a technically viable meeting, due
>> to specific concerns about corporate travel policies and device security
>> restrictions.  This was a sufficiently complex set of concerns that the
>> IETF LLC asked the IESG to determine if a meeting would be technically
>> viable.
>>
>> When reassessing the likely onsite attendance at IETF 127 San Francisco,
>> the LLC Board noted:
>>
>>     • Strong historical support in the venue – the past meeting in San
>> Francisco was reasonably attended and financially well-supported through
>> sponsorship (i.e., one of the few meetings around that time to not operate
>> at a loss.
>>     • Community feedback on entry issues into the US was additional
>> community feedback highlighting return issues back into the US after
>> attending a meeting outside of the US.
>>     • In addition to the concerns raised about holding a meeting in San
>> Francisco, there was also feedback to convene there as planned.
>>
>> Based on this, the LLC Board assessed this support would continue well in
>> excess of the lower water mark set by the IESG in their decision about IETF
>> 125 and therefore an unambiguous decision. The LLC considers the IESG’s
>> assessment for IETF 125 to be limited, made at a point in time about the
>> execution of the standards process, and not the totality of considerations
>> on the participation threshold that ensures venue viability. If the LLC
>> faced similar ambiguity as it did for the IETF 125, it would consult the
>> IESG again. For this reason, the Venue identification and selection process
>> was updated with an explicit Step 4b [3]
>>
>> 4. Why is the LLC Board not ‘listening to the community’?
>>
>> It is clear from the feedback received that the community is strongly
>> divided on this.  The LLC Board has received as many representations from
>> those who want the meeting to go ahead in San Francisco, as it has from
>> those who want it moved.
>>
>> 5. What does the LLC Board say to those who are unwilling to travel to
>> San Francisco?
>>
>> BCP 226 explicitly recognizes that there may be times when “onerous entry
>> regulations inhibit, discourage, or prevent participants from attending
>> meetings” but that “meeting locations are to be distributed such that
>> onerous entry regulations are not always experienced by the same
>> attendees”.
>>
>> IETF participants from some countries, primarily in Africa and Asia and
>> as judged by the support requests and feedback that the meetings team
>> receives, regularly report experiencing onerous visa processes and
>> difficult treatment at borders.
>>
>> 6. Why is the LLC Board not ‘taking a stance against the change in border
>> policy’?
>>
>> The IETF is not a political organisation, it is an engineering one and
>> while individuals are free to make their own political choices, it is not
>> for the LLC Board to make them for them. BCP 226 is explicit on this:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> If the community wants to change this, then it can do so through a
>> community consensus document.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Jay, on behalf of the IETF LLC Board
>>
>> --
>> Jay Daley
>> IETF Executive Director
>> [e-mail]
>>
>>