[Mtgvenue] Emergency cancellation [was: comments on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 31/01/2017 04:07, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hiya,,
> 
> On 30/01/17 14:14, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>

...
>> Just a question: if a meeting were to be canceled today, say due to a
>> natural catastrophe, who would make that call?
> 
> My guess is a combination of IESG/IAOC with help from
> folks involved in meeting arrangements (hosts, locals,
> ams, NOC).

It would surely depend on the urgency. If a major earthquake
hit the venue on the previous Friday, I would expect the IAD
(with the Secretariat) to take a decision within a few hours,
after a best effort to consult the IETF Chair and the local
hosts. If there was a week to go, a round of consultation
with the IAOC and the IESG would be possible.

> Ultimately, I'd say it'd be the IESG's responsibility

I don't think that's clear. BCP101 gives authority over business
decisions to IASA, which is led by the IAD, overseen by the
IAOC. Emergency cancellation of a meeting seems like a business
decision to me. But obviously, if time permits, consensus between
the IAD, the Secretariat, the IAOC and the IESG would be very
highly desirable.

In any case this seems out of scope for the present document.

    Brian

> but
> that any sane IESG would want the IAOC to agree with them
> or to have asked that the IESG make the call. Equally
> though if a sane IAOC came to the IESG and said "we really
> need to cancel" I can't see it'd be likely an IESG would
> disagree, though there'd be a fairly interesting Q&A I'm
> sure.
> 
> All that said, I've not gone looking anywhere to check
> so the above could be wrong. Maybe the contingency plan
> behind those URLs has answers?
> 
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> - 3.1, host/sponsors: I don't think this ought be mandatory
>>>>> as we may move from a sposor-related-to-venue model to some
>>>>> other ways in which sponsors help out.  It might be better
>>>>> to cast this as a negative, i.e. to say that it is
>>>>> mandatory to ensure that a venue is not sponsor-unfriendly
>>>>> to a significant degree and I'd also s/mandatory/important/
>>>>>
>>>>> - 3.2, "within the norms of business travel": I don't like
>>>>> that characterisation - IETF participation might in future
>>>>> not live up to that budget. Ought we say "acceptable to IETF
>>>>> participants in general" maybe.
>>>> Didn't we just get away from having to evaluate what that means?
>>> Not sure what you mean. My point is that for some IETF
>>> participants (some of the time;-) "business travel" means the
>>> front of the plane and no problems with expensive hotels.
>>> Others are more constrained. I'd prefer we ground the acceptable
>>> costs on the "average" meeting-attending IETFers ability to pay.
>>
>> I get it.  Just want to avoid consensus calls on what people think is
>> reasonable.  Maybe spelling out what is meant by "norms of business
>> travel" is best...
> 
> I'd avoid the phrase "business travel" entirely. While IETF
> travel is business for almost all of us, that phrase has
> connotations of more comfort than some of us can afford, at
> least for me when I play the poor-mouth:-)
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mtgvenue mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>