Subject: [Mtgvenue] Comments on draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-03

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:54:59 -0700

Hello,

I read 
draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-03.  Although it 
may be premature to determine what is mandatory or what is desired 
for a meeting venue, it is useful to have some information written in 
this draft.

In Section 2.1: "IETF consensus with respect to the meeting venue 
selection process is judged via standard IETF process and not by any 
other means".  There will be two documents from this Working Group 
about that.  According to the Charter, the meeting venue selection 
process will be determined by those two documents.

I was not aware that there was an IAOC Meeting Committee until Dave 
mentioned it during an on-list discussion.  According to Section 3.1, 
"At this time, the vast majority of
attendees come from North America, Western and Central Europe, and 
Eastern Asia".  https://iaoc.ietf.org/members.html does not list 
anyone from Eastern Asia even though there is some majority of 
attendees who come from that region.  Has the IAOC sought out persons 
from that region to see whether there would be interested in being on 
the IAOC Meeting Committee?  During the last plenary, there were 
questions which were directed at the IAOC.  Is the IAOC or the IAOC 
Meeting Committee responsible for answering such questions?

Section 3.1 has the following: "We meet in different locations 
globally in order to spread the pain and cost of travel among active 
participants".  How does the IAOC determine who are active 
participants and where they are located?

In Section 3.1: "We also aim to enhance inclusiveness and new 
contributions".  What is the meaning of "enhance inclusiveness"?  Is 
it "to facilitate the onsite or remote participation of anyone who 
wants to be involved"?  Isn't it more about open meetings where 
nobody will put you out if you do not have a participant badge?

How does the meeting venue selection process aim at enhancing new 
contributions?  Does that mean that I would have to attend a meeting 
in person if I would like my draft to be considered by a working group?

   "While many have their participation underwritten by employers
    or sponsors, there are many who do not."

Is the above statement based on statistics?

In Section 3.1: "The IETF does not make political statements".  The 
IETF Chair attended the following meeting: 
http://www.oecd.org/internet/ministerial/  Some people might view it 
as political while others might argue that the IETF should be there 
to advocate for its interests.

   "We do not decide who is or is not a country, and we do not choose
    or not choose venues based on political criteria."

In my opinion, it is not up to this draft to set IETF policies such 
as "we do not decide who is or is not a country".  I guess that the 
point in the above is that the choice of venue is not based on some 
political criteria.

Section 3.2 has the following: "The IAOC's supporting objectives 
include:" "Advancing standards development".  The IAOC is supposed to 
be an administrative oversight committee.  The fact that it includes 
two Chairs from different bodies and a CEO might create a perception 
that it is the better place to discuss about how to support advancing 
standards development.  It does raise questions about the role of the 
IESG and the IAB though.

I asked a question which is related to Section 4 at 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mtgvenue/current/msg00274.html

In my opinion, it would be easier to have a discussion from (IETF) 
policy for venues and then get into the process and criteria.  At the 
moment, there is the "1-1-1-*" policy from an IAOC minutes and 
nothing more in terms of IETF policy.  Although it may not be the 
intent of the contributors of this draft, the draft seems to set IETF 
policy which is beyond meeting venue issues.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:41:14 +0200

> I was not aware that there was an IAOC Meeting Committee until Dave mentioned it during an on-list discussion.  According to Section 3.1, "At this time, the vast majority of
> attendees come from North America, Western and Central Europe, and Eastern Asia".  https://iaoc.ietf.org/members.html does not list anyone from Eastern Asia even though there is some majority of attendees who come from that region.  Has the IAOC sought out persons from that region to see whether there would be interested in being on the IAOC Meeting Committee?  During the last plenary, there were questions which were directed at the IAOC.  Is the IAOC or the IAOC Meeting Committee responsible for answering such questions?

A good question. I am personally very concerned that our leadership is still very much from North America and Europe (and in many cases, just North America). For the most part, this is broader than the IAOC, however. The IAOC does not have control of its own members, the Nomcom (and IESG/IAB/ISOC) selects it. However, the IAOC does have control of its committees. Nevertheless, we all have a lot to do here.

> Section 3.1 has the following: "We meet in different locations globally in order to spread the pain and cost of travel among active participants".  How does the IAOC determine who are active participants and where they are located?

Another good question.

> Is the above statement based on statistics?

I wish I had an answer to that, but I don’t. The arkko.com statistics for instance don’t know this, and it is difficult to determine it from any outside, visible factors. You’d have to ask the participants.

> In Section 3.1: "The IETF does not make political statements".  The IETF Chair attended the following meeting: http://www.oecd.org/internet/ministerial/  Some people might view it as political while others might argue that the IETF should be there to advocate for its interests.

Well… and Andrew was in the US Congress. But I’d argue that the place does not make politics, it is what message your are there for. In general, we try to be the experts and provide information for instance on what is happening on the Internet and how various things affect it. We don’t try to be the policy makers. That being said, the line between tech and policy is not always clear.

(My talks at the OECD event can be found here: http://www.arkko.com/publications/itac.txt http://www.arkko.com/publications/oecdpanel.txt)

> In my opinion, it is not up to this draft to set IETF policies such as "we do not decide who is or is not a country".  I guess that the point in the above is that the choice of venue is not based on some political criteria.

I understand how the not-a-country thing ended up in the draft, but I tend to agree with you that it shouldn’t be used as example.

Jari

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 06:40:56 -0400

SM,

See below. Again speaking for myself, as draft coauthor and one iaoc member.

On July 14, 2016 3:10:27 PM S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> the IAOC Meeting Committee?

The is another point that we, we the iaoc, have discussed internally and I 
expect there to be a message to the community on this out any time now - 
the current hold up is travel logistics.

> During the last plenary, there were

The iaoc meetings subcommittee is an activity that supports the iaoc that 
makes  recommendations to the iaoc. Imo responsibility lies with the iaoc.

> participants and where they are located?

The iaoc doesn't set the meeting location policy. The ietf, through the 
iesg and ietf chair, do and the iaoc implements the policy.

As there is now a draft on meeting location policy, perhaps this text 
should be moved there...

> nobody will put you out if you do not have a participant badge?

Same response...

> Is the above statement based on statistics?

No. But I none the less think it's true - just look at the participants in 
this discussion - do you disagree?  What replacement text would you like to 
see?

...
> as "we do not decide who is or is not a country".

In general, imo policy is set by the ietf. So as this is going to be an 
ietf consensus document it *could* set policy. That said, I think most 
policy statements in this draft can move to the draft that formalize the 
1-1-1-* policy.

> I guess that the

Right. And probably should be in this doc.

> standards development.  It does raise questions about the role of the

I don't think iaoc composition changes its mission or scope.  It is not the 
policy decision making / calling body for the ietf. Period.

> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mtgvenue/current/msg00274.html

And see the response at
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mtgvenue/current/msg00276.html

Do you have a follow-up question or suggestion on a text change?

> policy which is beyond meeting venue issues.

My expectation is that the wg will produce drafts that go through ietf 
concensus process. If this draft isn't the right wg draft for some 
text/topics, let's move it to the right one - but let's not drop text 
without adding it somewhere else. Imo that risks loosing import suff.

Thanks for the comments.

Lou

> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 04:20:34 -0700

Hi Jari,
At 00:41 15-07-2016, Jari Arkko wrote:
>A good question. I am personally very concerned 
>that our leadership is still very much from 
>North America and Europe (and in many cases, 
>just North America). For the most part, this is 
>broader than the IAOC, however. The IAOC does 
>not have control of its own members, the Nomcom 
>(and IESG/IAB/ISOC) selects it. However, the 
>IAOC does have control of its committees. 
>Nevertheless, we all have a lot to do here.

I understand the choices for the IAOC are NomCom/IESG/IAB/ISOC decisions.

>Well… and Andrew was in the US Congress. But I’d 
>argue that the place does not make politics, it 
>is what message your are there for. In general, 
>we try to be the experts and provide information 
>for instance on what is happening on the 
>Internet and how various things affect it. We 
>don’t try to be the policy makers. That being 
>said, the line between tech and policy is not always clear.
>
>(My talks at the OECD event can be found here: 
>http://www.arkko.com/publications/itac.txt 
>http://www.arkko.com/publications/oecdpanel.txt)

Thanks for the transcripts of the talks.  I 
watched Andrew's Testimony to US Commerce 
Committee.  I did not mention it as it was IAB stuff.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:37:55 -0700

Hi Lou,
>See below. Again speaking for myself, as draft coauthor and one iaoc member.

On the first page of the draft there is the following:

   "Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
    document authors.  All rights reserved."

There is only one person identified as the document author/editor.

>The is another point that we, we the iaoc, have discussed internally 
>and I expect there to be a message to the community on this out any 
>time now - the current hold up is travel logistics.

Ok.

>The iaoc meetings subcommittee is an activity that supports the iaoc 
>that makes  recommendations to the iaoc. Imo responsibility lies with the iaoc.

Ok.

>The iaoc doesn't set the meeting location policy. The ietf, through 
>the iesg and ietf chair, do and the iaoc implements the policy.
>
>As there is now a draft on meeting location policy, perhaps this 
>text should be moved there...

My question was "How does the IAOC determine who are active 
participants and where they are located?"  My understanding of the 
above is that it is the IESG and IETF Chair who have set the policy 
about active participants and it is the IAOC which implemented 
that.  As there is the "we meet ..." sentence is in the draft, could 
the reference to the policy be shared on this mailing list?

>No. But I none the less think it's true - just look at the 
>participants in this discussion - do you disagree?  What replacement 
>text would you like to see?

The statement in the draft is not based on factual information.  I 
took a quick look at the attendance figures for one IETF meeting.  It 
does not look like the majority of meeting attendees are not 
underwritten by employers or sponsors.  In the IETF Area I used to 
participate in, there were a majority of meeting attendees who were 
underwritten by employers or sponsors.  I did not have any problem 
with that as I understand that it is not always affordable for 
people, irrespective of country, to attend a meeting in a foreign country.

As a reply to the second question, there was a message from the 
Working Group Chairs about the suitability of this draft as a basis 
for the process deliverable to the mailing list.

>Do you have a follow-up question or suggestion on a text change?

The response is useful.  However, it can be pointed out to me that 
the response is not an IAOC reply.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:44:02 -0400

Hi SM,

> There is only one person identified as the document author/editor.
???

See https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/FrontPageAuthors

And then read and count
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-03#section-8

Can you please clarify your point/objection?

Is it that the rest of the contributors have relinquished our rights to
Fred?  I certainly have no reservations about not claiming any rights.

Is it you'd prefer that we list everyone on the front page and then move
authors back to contributors  once we're ready for publication?  This
seems unnecessary to me.

Or something else?

> the reference to the policy be shared on this mailing list?

I see it as general introductory (informative vs normative) text given
context to the reader.  Having a place to reference for the formal
definition certainly would be nice.  (It was particularly fun - and
totally surprising -- tracking down a reference for the 1-1-1-* policy!)

> underwritten by employers or sponsors.  

ahh, so you are suggesting: s/are many who do not/are some who do not

I have no objection to this change.

> In the IETF Area I used to 

> for the process deliverable to the mailing list.
I'm not sure about which message you are referring to.  Can you provide
a url to the message?

> the response is not an IAOC reply.

Okay so you want an IAOC  consensus statement on this one point (are
Hotel contracts Key Contracts). Sure.

It's actually part of a broader subject that I'm hoping will be covered
publicly by the IAOC in Berlin, so I hope that our statements there will
be sufficient -- if not please let us know.

Thanks,
Lou

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:38:33 -0700

Hi Lou,
>authors back to contributors  once we're ready for publication?  This

My preference before the discussion about the IETF 100 issues began 
was that it is better to keep to the history of the RFC Series as I 
have come across cases of drafts with much more than five listed 
authors.  I would certainly not ask you to relinquish your rights of 
authorship as I have never asked anyone in the IETF to do that.  I 
was surprised to see you writing as co-author as I saw your name 
listed in Section 8.

I stepped away from IETF discussions for quite some time.  I would 
have thought of the contributors explanation if I was still doing 
regular IETF reviews.  I thought about whether to ask you about this 
off-list.  I decided not to do that because of my past off-list 
experience (nothing related to this working group).

>totally surprising -- tracking down a reference for the 1-1-1-* policy!)

The reference to the 1-1-1 policy is in Section 3 at 
https://iaoc.ietf.org/minutes/2010-11-10-iaoc-minutes.txt

>I have no objection to this change.

It would, in my personal opinion, be useful if the authors of this 
draft could provide some metrics so that the IETF does not have to 
revisit that for several years.

>Hotel contracts Key Contracts). Sure.

Thanks.

>be sufficient -- if not please let us know.

A statement in the meeting proceedings is good enough.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 17:55:50 -0400

Hi SM,

On 7/15/2016 5:38 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> off-list.  
NP.  BTW the decision on front page listing was Fred's and not one that
any of us objected to.

> I decided not to do that because of my past off-list 
I sympathize -- and I at times apply the same rule (but usually applied
at the individual level).
 
> https://iaoc.ietf.org/minutes/2010-11-10-iaoc-minutes.txt
Yes, I know. I found the reference and put it there.

> A statement in the meeting proceedings is good enough.
We'll see what final form it takes...

Cheers,
Lou