Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           M. Duke
Request for Comments: 9137                             F5 Networks, Inc.
BCP: 226                                                    October 2021
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721


           Considerations for Cancellation of IETF Meetings

Abstract

  The IETF ordinarily holds three in-person meetings per year to
  discuss issues and advance the Internet.  However, various events can
  make a planned in-person meeting infeasible.  This document provides
  criteria to aid the IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC), the Internet
  Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and the Chair of the Internet
  Research Task Force (IRTF) in deciding to relocate, virtualize,
  postpone, or cancel an in-person IETF meeting.

Status of This Memo

  This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
  (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
  received public review and has been approved for publication by the
  Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
  BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

  Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
  and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9137.

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.  Conventions
  3.  Decision Criteria and Roles
    3.1.  IETF LLC
    3.2.  The IESG and the Chair of the IRTF
  4.  Remedies
    4.1.  Relocation
    4.2.  Virtualization
    4.3.  Postponement
    4.4.  Cancellation
  5.  Refunds
  6.  Security Considerations
  7.  IANA Considerations
  8.  Normative References
  Acknowledgments
  Author's Address

1.  Introduction

  Among the highlights of the IETF calendar are 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 this may not be immediately obvious for
  some events.  Examples of such events include the following:

  *  A 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 meeting
     infrastructure in a planned location and make it unethical to
     further burden that infrastructure with a meeting.

  *  War, civil unrest, or a 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, resulting in lower expected attendance.

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

  This document provides criteria to aid the IETF Administration LLC
  (IETF LLC), the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and the
  Chair of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) in deciding to
  relocate, virtualize, postpone, or cancel an in-person IETF meeting.

2.  Conventions

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
  "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
  BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
  capitals, as shown here.

  In this document, the term "venue" refers to both the facility that
  houses the sessions and the official meeting hotel(s), as defined in
  [RFC8718].

3.  Decision Criteria and Roles

  The IETF LLC assesses whether an 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 and the Chair of the IRTF assess if the projected attendance is
  sufficient for a viable in-person meeting.

3.1.  IETF LLC

  The IETF 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.
  If such an event occurs more than fourteen weeks before the start of
  the scheduled meeting, it is deemed a non-emergency situation.  Later
  events, up to and including the week of a meeting itself, are deemed
  emergency situations.

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

  *  Consulting with the community on the timetable of the decision
     process.

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

  *  Publishing an assessment report and recommended remedy.

  *  Seeking approval of the IESG and the Chair of the IRTF for the
     recommendation.

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

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

  These criteria, some of which are derived from Section 3 of
  [RFC8718], apply to venues that are re-evaluated due to an emergency:

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

  *  It is possible to provision Internet access to the venue 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 expects to have
     adequate capacity to support an influx of visitors during the
     meeting week.

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

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

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

  The IETF LLC SHOULD cancel an in-person meeting and explore potential
  remedies if it judges a meeting to be logistically impossible or
  inconsistent with its fiduciary responsibilities.

  In the event of considerations this document does not foresee, the
  IETF 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 the Chair of the IRTF.  The IESG should pursue a later
  update of this document.

3.2.  The IESG and the Chair of the IRTF

  If the IETF LLC assesses there are no fundamental logistical or
  financial obstacles to holding a meeting in an emergency situation,
  the IESG and the Chair of the IRTF assess if projected attendance is
  high enough to achieve the benefit of an in-person meeting.  The IESG
  and the Chair of the IRTF SHOULD cancel the in-person meeting if that
  benefit is insufficient.

  The IESG and the Chair of the IRTF are discouraged from relying on a
  simple head count of expected meeting attendance.  Even dramatically
  smaller meetings with large remote participation may be successful.
  In addition to the IETF LLC's estimate, the IESG and the Chair of the
  IRTF 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

  If a meeting cannot be held at the scheduled time and place, the IETF
  LLC, IESG, and Chair of the IRTF have several options.  The remedies
  in this section should be considered in light of four principles
  (presented in no particular order):

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

  *  Provide benefits of in-person interactions when possible.

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

  *  Ensure sufficient time and resources to adequately prepare an
     alternative.

  The following remedies are listed in approximate declining order of
  preference.

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 LLC SHOULD 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 a meeting fully online.  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 a meeting until a specific date, at the
  same venue, at which conditions are expected to improve.  The new end
  date of a meeting must be at least 30 days before the beginning of
  the following IETF meeting, and a meeting MUST begin no earlier than
  30 days 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.

  Note that it is possible to both postpone and relocate a meeting,
  though this has the disadvantages of both.

4.4.  Cancellation

  The IETF LLC, IESG, and Chair of the IRTF may cancel a meeting
  entirely in the event that worldwide conditions make it difficult for
  attendees to even attend online.  Not holding a meeting at all can
  have wide implications, such as effects on the nomination process and
  seating of new officers.

  Cancellation is likely the only practical alternative when
  emergencies occur immediately before or during a 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 are 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 IETF LLC SHOULD offer refunds to registered
     attendees who claim they cannot attend at the newly scheduled
     time.  Attendees can opt out of receiving a refund.

  *  When a meeting is virtualized, the IETF LLC MUST offer to refund
     registered attendees the difference between their paid
     registration fee and the equivalent fee for an online meeting.
     The IETF LLC SHOULD offer refunds to registered attendees who do
     not wish to attend an online meeting.

  *  The IETF LLC SHOULD offer refunds to attendees whose government
     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 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 IETF LLC may suspend them.

6.  Security Considerations

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

7.  IANA Considerations

  This document has no IANA actions.

8.  Normative 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>.

  [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
             2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
             May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

  [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>.

Acknowledgments

  Jay Daley provided extensive input to make this document more usable
  by the IETF LLC.  Many members of the IESG and the SHMOO Working
  Group also provided useful comments.

Author's Address

  Martin Duke
  F5 Networks, Inc.

  Email: [email protected]