Hello,
I read draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-12 as there
were a few messages on ietf@xxxxxxxx about Bangkok as a venue.
In Section 1, there is the following: "As always, the community is
encouraged to provide direct feedback to the Nominations Committee
(NOMCOM), Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and IAB
regarding the discharge of the IETF Administrative Oversight
Committee's performance". Is the IESG and IAB the supervising bodies
of the IAOC?
In Section 2.1, which is about "IETF values", there is the following:
"We meet in different locations globally, in order to spread the
difficulty and cost of travel among active participants". From what
I recall, venue selection used to be based on attendance [1] as there
weren't any statistics about participation. Using "attendees" and
"participants" interchangeably may mislead the reader. I looked up
the word "globally" and its meaning was as follows: "in a way that
relates to the whole world". According to the information published
by the IETF, 99% of IETF meetings were held in the Northern
Hemisphere. Is "globally" used in that sentence to promote a cause
or a point of view?
Under "Economics", there is the following: "Meeting attendees
participate as individuals". Most of the RFCs has the author listed
as being from a company. Most of the IPR disclosures are from
companies. Does attendee participation as individuals mean that the
IPR disclosed during that participation "belongs" to the individual
instead of the employer?
Section 3.2 states that "criteria in this subsection are not
mandatory". Is the "MUST" in that subsection mandatory?
As a nit, there is a typo for "Considerations" in Section 3.3.
In Section 4.1, there is the following: "Participants have a
responsibility to express their views about venues early and often,
by responding to surveys ..." Why should a remote participant be
concerned about venue selection? Based on my experience, the time
difference was sometimes inconvenient.
In Section 4.2, there is the following: "This means that the IESG
sets high level policies related to, among other things, meeting
venues. The IETF Chair, among other things, relays these
IESG-determined policies to the IAOC". Why isn't this draft updating
RFC 4071 given that it changes the "grant of authority"? Why is the
IESG using this intended BCP to specify that it sets high level policies?
How are "interested members of the community" chosen (Section 4.7)?
What is the definition of regions (Section 5.1 (a))? Who defines the regions?
In Section 5.4, there is the following: "At this time, the
announcement MUST include any notable economic, health, or safety
risks or references thereto". The latest announcement [2] does not
contain any information about notable risks. I did a quick search
and found a travel advisory stating that "there is some risk to your
security". It does not make sense to have a "MUST" if IASA cannot
comply with it.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-ietf-sessb-iesgietf-chair-slides
2. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg17400.html