shmoo                                                            M. Duke
Internet-Draft                                         F5 Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Best Current Practice                      2 April                       17 May 2021
Expires: 4 October 18 November 2021

            Considerations for Cancellation of IETF Meetings
                   draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting-02
                   draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting-03

Abstract

   The IETF firmly believes in the value of holds three in-person meetings per year to discuss and undestand
   understand issues.  However, various emergencies can make a planned
   in-person meeting impossible. infeasible.  This document provides criteria for
   making this judgment.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 4 October 18 November 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
   as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Decision Criteria and Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  IETF LLC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  IESG  . . . . . . . and IRTF Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Remedies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Relocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Virtualization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  Postponement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.4.  Cancellation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Refunds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Appendix B.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     B.1.  Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-01 draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-02 . . . . . . . .   8
     B.2.  Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-00 draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-01 . . . . . . . .   8
     B.3.  Since draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meetings-01 draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-00 . . . . . . . .   8
     B.4.  Since draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meetings-00 draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meetings-01 . . . . . . . .   8
     B.5.  Since draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meetings-00 . . . . . . . .   8
     B.6.  Since draft-duke-remote-meetings-00 . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8   9

1.  Introduction

   One highlight of the IETF calendar is in-person general meetings,
   which happen three times a year at various locations around the
   world.

   Various major events may affect the suitability of a scheduled in-
   person IETF meeting, though for some this may not be immediately
   obvious.  For example:

   *  The meeting venue itself may unexpectedly close or otherwise be
      unable to meet IETF meeting requirements due to a health issue,
      legal violation, or other localized problem.

   *  A natural disaster could degrade the travel and event
      infrastructure in a planned location and make it unethical to
      further burden that infrastructure with a meeting.

   *  War, civil unrest, or public health crisis could make a meeting
      unsafe and/or result in widespread national or corporate travel
      bans.

   *  An economic crisis could sharply reduce resources available for
      travel.

   *  Changes in visa policy or other unexpected governmental
      restrictions might make the venue inaccessible to numerous
      attendees.

   This document provides procedures for the IETF to decide to postpone,
   move, or cancel an in-person IETF meeting.

2.  Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   In this document, the term "venue" refers to both the facility that
   houses the sessions and the official meeting hotel(s).

3.  Decision Criteria and Roles

   The IETF Administration LLC (LLC) assesses whether or not an in-person in-
   person meeting is logistically and financially viable in light of
   events, and assembles information about various travel restrictions
   that might impact attendance.  The
   IESG assesses Internet Engineering Steering
   Group (IESG) and IRTF chair assess if the projected attendance is
   sufficient for a viable in-person meeting.

3.1.  IETF LLC

   The LLC is responsible for assessing the suitability of a venue for
   an IETF meeting and is responsible for any reassessment in response
   to a major event that leaves the prior conclusion in doubt.  Where
   such an event occurs more that twelve weeks before the start of the
   scheduled meeting, it is deemed a non- emergency situation.  Later
   events, up to and including the week of the meeting itself, are
   deemed an emergency situation.

   In non-emergency situations, if the LLC determines the scheduled
   meeting clearly cannot proceed (e.g. (e.g., the venue has permanently
   closed), then it MUST consult with the community on the reason(s) and
   its proposed remedy.  In less clear cases, the LLC SHOULD conduct a
   formal reassessment process that includes:

   *  Consulting with the community on the process timetable timetable.

   *  Consulting with the community on criteria to assess the impact of
      new developments developments.

   *  Consulting with the community on the form of the assessment report
      report.

   *  Publishing an assessment report and recommended remedy.

   *  Seeking approval of the IESG for the recommendation.

   In emergency situations, which lack the time for a consultation
   process, this document provides an IETF consensus on criteria the LLC
   MUST apply in its assessment.

   The LLC will collect information about the likely impact to in-person
   attendance of national travel advisories, national and corporate
   travel bans, quarantine requirements, etc. and report the results to
   the IESG.

   The criteria in Section 3.1 of [RFC8718] apply to venues that have
   changed status. are re-
   evaluated due to an emergency.  Specifically:

   *  Local safety guidelines allow the venue and hotels to host a
      meeting with the expected number of participants and staff.

   *  It MUST be possible to provision Internet Access to the Facility
      and IETF Hotels that allows those attending in person to utilize
      the Internet for all their IETF, business, and day-to-day needs;
      in addition, there must be sufficient bandwidth and access for
      remote attendees.  Provisions include, but are not limited to,
      native and unmodified IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, and global
      reachability; there may be no additional limitation that would
      materially impact their Internet use.  To ensure availability, it
      MUST be possible to provision redundant paths to the Internet.

   *  A reasonable number of food and drink establishments are open and
      available within walking distance to provide for the expected
      number of participants and staff.

   *  Local health and public safety infrastructure should expect to
      have adequate capacity to support an influx of visitors during the
      meeting week.

   Finally, the LLC MUST assess the impact on its own operations,
   including:

   *  The number of critical support staff and contractors who can be at
      the venue venue.

   *  The financial impact of continuing the meeting, or implementing
      any of the possible remedies.

   The LLC SHOULD cancel the meeting if it judges the meeting to be
   logistically impossible or inconsistent with its fiduciary
   responsibilities.

   In the event of considerations this document does not foresee, the
   LLC should protect the health and safety of attendees and staff, as
   well as the fiscal health of the organization, with approval from the
   IESG and a plan to seek a later update of this document.

3.2.  IESG and IRTF Chair

   If the LLC assesses there are no fundamental logistical or financial
   obstacles to holding the meeting, the IESG assesses and IRTF chair assess if
   projected attendance is high enough to capture the benefit of an in-person in-
   person meeting.

   The IESG is discouraged from relying on a simple head count of
   expected event attendance.  Even dramatically smaller events with
   large remote participation may be successful.  In addition to the
   LLC's estimate, the IESG might consider:

   *  Are many working groups and research groups largely unaffected by
      the restrictions, so that they can operate effectively?

   *  Is there a critical mass of key personnel at most working group
      meetings to leverage the advantages of in-person meetings, even if
      many participants are remote?

4.  Remedies

   In

   If the event cannot be held at the scheduled time and place, the IETF
   has several options.  The remedies below should be consdered in light
   of these principles, presented in no particular order:

   *  Hold the scheduled sessions of the meeting in some format format.

   *  Provide benefits of in-person interactions when possible possible.

   *  Avoid exorbitant additional travel expenses due to last minute
      flight changes, etc.

   *  The  Ensure the available time and resources allow the alternative to
      be adequately prepared.

4.1.  Relocation

   For attendees, the least disruptive response is to retain the meeting
   week but move it to a more accessible venue.  To the maximum extent
   possible, this will be geographically close to the original venue.
   In particular, the IETF should strive to meet the criteria in
   [RFC8718] and [RFC8719].

   Relocation that requires new air travel arrangements for attendees
   SHOULD NOT occur less than one month prior to the start of the
   meeting.

4.2.  Virtualization

   The second option, and one that has fewer issues with venue
   availability, is to make the meeting fully remote.  This requires
   different IETF processes and logistical operations that are outside
   the scope of this document.

4.3.  Postponement

   Although it is more disruptive to the schedules of participants, the
   next best option is to delay the meeting until a specific date at
   which conditions are expected to improve.  The new end date of the
   meeting must be at least 30 days before the beginning of the
   following IETF meeting. meeting, and the meeting must begin no earlier than 1
   month after the postponement announcement.

   Due to scheduling constraints at the venue, this will usually not be
   feasible.  However, it is more likely to allow attendees to recover
   at least some of their travel expenses than other options.

4.4.  Cancellation

   As a last resort, IETF may cancel the meeting totally.  This is a
   last resort in the event that worldwide conditions make it difficult
   for attendees to even attend remotely.  Not holding a meeting at all
   has
   can have wide implications for the rhythm of IETF personnel policies,
   such as the nomination process and seating of new officers.

   Cancellation is likely the only practical alternative when
   emergencies occur immeidiately immediately before or during the meeting, so that
   there is no opportunity to make other arrangements.

5.  Refunds

   The IETF SHOULD NOT reimburse registered attendees for unrecoverable
   travel expenses (airfare, hotel deposits, etc).

   However, there are several cases where full or partial refund of
   registration fees is appropriate:

   *  Cancellation SHOULD result in a full refund to all participants.
      It MAY be prorated if some portion of the sessions completed
      without incident.

   *  Upon postponement, the LLC SHOULD offer refunds to registered
      attendees who claim they cannot attend at the newly scheduled
      time.

   *  When the meeting becomes remote, the LLC SHOULD attempt to recover
      whatever venue-related payments, past or future, it can and rebate
      this to registered attendees, up to a maximum of their total cost
      of registration.

   *  The LLC SHOULD offer refunds to attendees whose nation of
      residence forbids, or has issued a safety advisory against, visits
      to the host venue, even if the in-person meeting will continue.
      It SHOULD NOT refund cancellations due to organizational
      restrictions employer policy or
      personal risk assessments.

   These provisions intend to maintain trust between the IETF and its
   participants.  However, under extraordinary threats to the solvency
   of the organization, the LLC may suspend them.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces no new concerns for the security of internet
   protocols.

7.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA requirements.

8.  Informative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8718]  Lear, E., Ed., "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection
              Process", BCP 226, RFC 8718, DOI 10.17487/RFC8718,
              February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8718>.

   [RFC8719]  Krishnan, S., "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy
              of the IETF", BCP 226, RFC 8719, DOI 10.17487/RFC8719,
              February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8719>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

Appendix B.  Change Log

B.1.  Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-02

   *  Added IRTF to IESG responsibilities

   *  WGLC Nits

B.2.  Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-01

   *  Added refund principles for hybrid meetings

B.2.

B.3.  Since draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meetings-00

   *  Jay Daley's nits

   *  Distinguish the emergency and non-emergency process

   *  Eliminated USSTATE/UKFO references

   *  Clarified roles of LLC and IESG

B.3.

B.4.  Since draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meetings-01

   *  Change to WG draft

B.4.

B.5.  Since draft-duke-shmoo-cancel-meetings-00

   *  Added mention of IRTF

   *  Discussed consensus on cancellation

B.5.

B.6.  Since draft-duke-remote-meetings-00

   *  Defined "venue"

   *  Added principles for selecting remedies and rewrote alternatives.

   *  Added local authority travel advisories

   *  Added some criteria from IETF 109

Author's Address

   Martin Duke
   F5 Networks, Inc.

   Email: martin.h.duke@gmail.com