Hi Jari, Just a couple of questions/clarifications here (rest in separate threads). Regarding the meals, the point is to make sure that the people have a place to have it, even if combined with on-site delivered food. I'm not sure if the document should talk about the exact schedule, but for sure we need something like: "In order to provide the best conditions for the meals and according to previous experience, the meeting schedule should be appropriately adjusted to the local habits". Regarding to insurance, the point here is that it seems never has been done or at least documented any required insurance, not as individuals, but as the meeting organization itself. This is extremely important to avoid any kind of responsibilities from the IETF organization and could change from country to country. So is important to have a explicit warning to be considered by each host/IETF responsible people (IAD/chair/others). I've never seen the evacuation plan in a conference, and probably is there, but if we haven't seen it, it will be worth to avoid risks having it conveniently delivered to all the participants (with the registration package seems to be the most appropriate way). Regarding the cancellation, the document doesn't say if it is being done correctly or not, but is not documented and I think is an important point. What happens if there is any kind of reason which forces to cancel a meeting. Are the fees being reimbursed or not ? Are the attendees compensated for the non-refundable flights, etc. If you believe all this is not clear in the document, please let me know so I can work out some additional text to make sure is properly understood. Regards, Jordi > De: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> > Responder a: <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> > Fecha: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:16:07 +0300 > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > CC: "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Asunto: Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria > > 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-c > riteria-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 > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ************************************ The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf