Subject: [Mtgvenue] Where we are, post #1

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:00:35 -0900

Hi, all:

There's been a ton of mail today and it's fantastic seeing the
process document under active review and discussion.  I thought
it might be helpful to try to pull together some of the discussion
and close it out, where possible.  There will be additional posts
summarizing where we don't have agreement or where we need
further discussion.

Also, many, many thanks to those who've proposed text.

So, stuff where we appear to have agreement:

In the matter of a statement about the meeting selection process
being as open as possible, Eliot's proposed text,
	The IETF's meeting venue selection process, as with all IETF 	
	processes, should be as open as practicable.
seems acceptable to everybody.

Stephen was concerned about the definition of "unfiltered" in section
1.2.  Eliot also thinks this needs elaboration so that potential hosts
will understand what's expected.  His proposed text:
	 Note that "unfiltered" in this context is meant to allow for
	all manner of forms of communications, as the
	IETF often makes first use of its own technologies at our
	meetings.  In addition, to facilitate
	the business of the IETF it is also necessary for participants
	to hold confidential discussions with their businesses,
	customers, and partners.
appears acceptable.  However, his proposed text
	At the same time, IETF participants are expected
	to make use of the network in a manner consistent
	with local laws and customs.
received some pushback and needs further discussion

Stephen was also concerned that section 5 is too prescriptive and
suggests emphasizing that this section is a guideline that's expect
to evolve, that what's listed is current practice, and while the
IAOC may change what they do they will need to publish their changes
and follow community consensus on those changes.  There appears to be
agreement to that, but text is needed.

There was also the question of the links in 5.3 and 5.5.  Lou suggested
that that material could be moved to an appendix, and there hasn't
been any disagreement.

Brian proposed the following text to address the international nature
of the IETF and its work:
	The IETF operates internationally and adjusts to local
	requirements.
and there appears to be agreement

Thanks,

Melinda

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:50:37 -0800 (PST)

> Hi, all:

[snip]
> will understand what's expected.  His proposed text:

"Note that "unfiltered" in this context is meant to allow for all 
manner of forms of communications, as the IETF often makes first use 
of its own technologies at our meetings.  In addition, to facilitate 
the business of the IETF it is also necessary for participants to hold 
confidential discussions with their businesses, customers, and 
partners."  appears acceptable.  

However, his proposed text "At the same time, IETF participants are 
expected to make use of the network in a manner consistent with local 
laws and customs." received some pushback and needs further 
discussion.

***OLE: The specifics having to do with our meeting/venue network
are published in a *separate* document which is maintained by the NOC
folks and this allows a host to say "we comply with the network
requirements of the IETF" in a public forum without having to say
something much more explicit which might well get them in trouble
with local authorticies. This is a feature, not a bug.

With respect to "...consistent with local laws and customs..." that's
a rather tricky detail that might be better left unsaid. As an 
example, the very handy "Find my iPhone" app does not work in Korea
for some "privacy" reason, but I can imagine it might work if using
a VPN....

Ole