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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf