(just a late addition of a comment or two..) Others have already commented on a number of things -- if this goes forward, the doc needs major editing. Below are my comments on those parts which I think haven't been all that extensively discussed. .............. Regarding the sponsorship, the meetings are not directly rewarding as a marketing action as it may be the case for other type of events, at least not directly, because the IETF community is mainly compound by engineers, not customers, but in any case is a rewarding action in front of the community. This "low level" rewarding is also one more reason to make sure that not all the sponsorship details are openly disseminated, unless clearly authorized by the hosts, and even do, it can be contra-productive for future meetings. ==> I'm not sure what this means, so remove or reword. The rooms generally are hold in a 24 hours basis, and is highly recommended the possibility to use them at any time w/o restrictions, except for the required timing of the cleaning service. In certain places this could be a cost issue and it may be not convenient. This may be the case when using conference facilities instead of meeting rooms in hotels. In those cases, it may be necessary to increase the security when there are too many entrances. Some additional technical issues may also arise according to previous experience, such as access to wiring closets, AV facilities, etc. Not having the rooms hold in a 24 hours basis could also be a problem in case electrical or network cabling/equipment has been deployed in the meeting rooms. ==> sometimes there seem to be requirements/guidance for NOC operations (e.g. the last para) rather than site selection. I'd rather put the 24h requirement in different words: while the rooms don't need to be available 24h, removing and reinstalling the equipment, cabling etc shouldn't be needed every evening and morning.. 8. Venue Acceptance/Rejection Report Despite the information provided by the proponent of a given venue, the IAD should, before taking a final decision about the acceptance or rejection of a given proposed venue, make an on-site survey. The on-site survey report will compare the selection criteria against the proposal information and the actual on-site findings, describing possible discrepancies or issues which may need further considerations even if they aren't directly described as part of the criteria set out-coming from this document. ==> so, IAD should survey all the proposed venues? Funded by whom? Could I ask IAD to visit my backyard to check it out (I could offer a free dinner too!)? It may or may not make sense to say that if there are multiple strong candidates (based on information received), a survey of appropriate selection of them could be useful. In order to demonstrate the compliance with the IETF meeting venue selection criteria, all the information related to the proposal of a site will be made publicly available in the IETF web site, considering the negotiation confidential issues which could be subjected to the sponsor/hosts decision. A summary of the information need to be made public regardless of the site being finally selected or not, and should include all the options, such as a given city and several venues in the same city, and so on. This will not only help the openness of the process but also as collective knowledge helping into a better organization and solution of issues for future meetings. ==> I'm not sure this level of detail is useful, and indeed, I don't think any sponsored venue proposal would like to have this kind of info public if the venue didn't get selected. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf