[Mtgvenue] Fwd: [Gendispatch] Draft GENAREA minutes - please review

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

Extracted minutes that are relevant to this list:

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Gendispatch] Draft GENAREA minutes - please review
> Date: 27 November 2023 at 11:37:53 GMT
> To: [e-mail]
> 
> Hi,
> 
> below are the minutes from the IETF 118 GENAREA session. Please review and send corrections where needed.
> 
> THANK YOU Emily Heron for saving my bacon by proactively taking minutes!
> 
> Lars
> 
> -- 
> 
> # GENAREA @ IETF 118 (Nov 8, 2023)
> 
> Note Taker: Emily Heron
> 
> ## Topic 1: draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements
> 
> ### Presenting Background from IETF 116
> 
> I-D recommends a new policy to replace RFC 8719. Addressing concerns
> that the current policy does not "distribute the pain" enough and
> makes exploratory meetings too hard.
> 
> Hotels and facilities: proposal to clarify what "close proximity"
> means. Will state that the hotel should be less than 10 min walk to
> venue, and safe to walk am/pm. Room block will meet sufficient
> demand. Overflow hotels is an optional feature.
> 
> Cullen Jennings: comment on making sure we don't get in a worst state
> with "meet expected demand" 1/3 has always been insufficient. Don't
> want to run into issues with people missing room block and stating
> violation of rule.
> 
> Bob Hinden: issue with work - cannot get approval to attend meeting
> until after reg opens, cannot book hotel until approval received,
> misses room block.
> 
> Jay Daley: Problem is currently that we under sell, not that we run
> out.
> 
> Ted Hardie: Ten minute walk is variable based on mobility issues.
> Should state distance, rather than speed. Possible state of gradient.
> Ease of movement as opposed to walking - i.e., tram.
> 
> Jay Daley: Will do this, current close proximity is loosely defined as
> 1 km walk, we are trying to narrow this. We will add in a firm
> distance.
> 
> There will be accessible places for ad hoc meetings, for example, hire
> furniture for lobby space. Could be lounge, ad hoc seating, etc.
> There will be sufficient places for people to work online on their
> own devices.
> 
> ### Recommendation: Unfiltered Internet Access
> 
> Proposal: Neither the facility network, the IETF Hotels network, nor any
> upstream providers may impose technical constraints that impact the
> ability of meeting attendees to participate in the meeting or develop
> Internet protocols.
> 
> Bob Hinden: Different countries have different rules for what is
> acceptable.
> 
> Jay Daley: That is what we are attempting to define here.
> 
> Bob Hinden: How do we tell when we are deciding on a meeting in a
> certain country what is acceptable filtering?
> 
> Jay Daley: In process - that is what this guidance is for.
> 
> Bob Hinden: The problem will happen when you arrive on site and
> discover filtering constraints.
> 
> Jay Daley: The announcements will be made in advance
> 
> Mark Nottingham: Reasonable. We as IETF need to experience Internet in
> all incarnations. We should announce to community in advance in order
> to educate that the Internet works in different ways in different
> places.
> 
> Pete Resnick: Unfiltered is not on the list of mandatory criteria.
> This doc worries too much. This is a good thing, but we do not need
> to worry about this as much. Strongly agree with adding more
> information, but don't overthink.
> 
> David Schinazi: Echo what people have said, dropping this requirement
> seems reasonable. This is a rabbithole.
> 
> Martin Duke: Like disclosure requirement. Define min. set of
> connectivity. Define sensitive content or Netflix, news etc.
> 
> Jay Daley: Alternative way of looking: Some say that if you can get
> away with doing things you shouldn't by using VPN, that is all that
> matters. Many view that this is too complex. Please feel free to have
> a go at defining minimum set of connectivity.
> 
> Martin Duke: Happy to work with Hackathon.
> 
> Cullen Jennings: Largely agree. do not think we should narrowly scope
> to IETF/hotel network. This should be country-wide so we do not break
> country laws in our own hotels etc. We should experience what it is
> to be in that country.
> 
> Jay Daley: Current doc scopes it to this.
> 
> Bob Hinden: Can't tell from current doc if we would always have IPv6
> on current network.
> 
> Jay Daley: This is a update, not a replacement.
> 
> Roman Danyliw: Does this capture the ability to communicate back to
> corp sponsors? Personal VPN? Corp VPN? Love to capture ability to
> connect back to corp resources.
> 
> Jay Daley: Existing doc already says that. This proposal is an update,
> not a replacement.
> 
> Pete Resnick: 111 star criteria: over constrained. In regard to <interupted>
> 
> Jay Daley: That is being taken out.
> 
> Pete Resnick: Retracted
> 
> Offlist: Having LLC do this is not the right way around, community
> should do it. Tried that at 116 - did not work. LLC is now doing it
> again.
> 
> Next Steps: update of draft and discussion on [e-mail]
> mailing list. At that point, Gen Chair can decide if we are ready for
> working group last call.

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]