4.1.1. Current Policy

[RFC8718] defines "IETF Hotels" as:¶

One or more hotels, in close proximity to the Facility, where the IETF guest room block allocations are negotiated and where network services managed by the IASA (e.g., the "IETF" SSID) are in use.¶

It also provides the following important criteria (only listing those directly relevant):¶

• The IETF Hotels are within close proximity to each other and the Facility.¶

Additionally, [RFC8718] contains this preference:¶

• We have something of a preference for an IETF meeting to be under "One Roof"; that is, qualified meeting space and guest rooms are available in the same facility.¶

4.1.2. Discussion

What happens in practice is that the IASA books a venue that conforms to one of two separate configurations:¶

1. A "one-roof" venue of a hotel with the meeting space in the hotel or directly attached.¶

   The advantages of this configuration are:¶

   • With a large enough room block, the meeting space is generally free.¶
   • For those IETF participants (and staff) that normally stay in the IETF hotel, there is a strong sense of community.¶
   • It is usually easier and more flexible to work with a single point of contact instead of several (e.g., convention centers have separate contacts for Audio/Visual services, Food/Beverage services, and meeting space).¶
   • It can be much cheaper for the IASA than working with a separate convention center.¶
   • Group discussions can move more naturally from the facility to the hotel.¶
   • It is easier to negotiate network changes to the hotel as part of an overall network package.¶
   • Someone can walk from their room to the meeting space in a few minutes, staying indoors the whole time.¶

   The disadvantages are:¶

   • There are a limited number of hotels (and therefore cities) with large enough meeting space and sufficient rooms to accommodate us.¶
   • The room rates at conference hotels are often on the high side, which can be more expensive for IETF participants.¶

2. A meeting space not co-located with a hotel (normally a convention center) but where there are hotels within a short walk.¶

   The advantages of this configuration are:¶

   • It makes many more cities available as potential venues.¶
   • It provides more options for local hotels.¶
   • It enables the IASA to negotiate a lower room rate than otherwise as convention centers generally have a range of hotels nearby.¶

   The disadvantages are:¶

   • Convention centers are much more difficult to negotiate with and are less flexible.¶
   • The IASA has to pay for the meeting space.¶
   • For those IETF participants (and staff) that normally stay in the IETF hotel, the sense of community is diminished.¶
   • The choice of a main hotel and negotiation of the network for that hotel are more complicated.¶

While a "one-roof" venue is preferred, there are a limited number of hotels (and therefore cities) with large enough meeting space and sufficient rooms to accommodate us. To meet in cities that do not have suitable "one-roof" venues, the IASA needs to work with convention centers. If this approach is not taken, then many cities and potentially some countries will be practically excluded as meeting venues.¶

It should also be noted that a "one-roof" venue shifts the costs of the meeting onto participants whereas a convention center shifts the costs onto the IASA.¶

Despite "one roof" being expressed as a preference in [RFC8718], there are some in the community who consider it as the only way to meet the requirement for "close proximity".¶

4.1.3. Resolution: Clarification of Interpretation

To address this concern, the IASA should interpret the "close proximity" requirement of [RFC8718] as follows:¶

Where the meeting space is a convention center or another facility without a directly attached hotel, the "close proximity" requirement for the IETF Hotels should mean that the time it takes to walk from the IETF Hotels to the meeting space should be no longer than ten minutes, and it should be a safe walk including early in the morning and late at night.¶

It should be noted that Section 3.2.2 of [RFC8718] already uses a walkability test of 5-10 minutes for a similar purpose.¶

4.2.1. Current Policy

[RFC8718] includes the following requirement as an important criterion:¶

• The guest rooms at the IETF Hotels are sufficient in number to house one-third or more of the projected meeting attendees.¶

4.2.2. Discussion

COVID-driven cancellations and lockdowns have badly affected the hospitality industry overall. Hotels and convention centers are now much more cautious about the terms of their bookings and much less willing to invest in securing a booking, as they aim to protect themselves from any similar sudden loss of income. For example, many hotels are now requiring conference organizers to provide full payment in advance for guest room blocks.¶

Where the IASA can get a large room block, it is finding that hotels are less willing to provide good discounts, so room pricing is not always on a par with other nearby hotels that have a smaller number of available rooms.¶

Then there is the impact of the now ubiquitous offering of short-term apartment rental sites. These sites are significant competitors to hotels for traveler accommodation both in price and availability.¶

The net result is that the IASA is reserving more hotel rooms than are being used, which exposes it to unnecessary risk as they are required to financially guarantee certain levels of occupancy, and this leads to wasted effort.¶

4.2.3. Resolution: Update to RFC 8718

To address this issue, this document updates Section 3.2.4 of [RFC8718] by replacing the total room block requirement for IETF Hotels from "one-third or more of projected meeting attendees" to a more flexible "sufficient rooms to meet the expected demand".¶

4.3.1. Current Policy

Section 1 of [RFC8718] defines "Overflow Hotels" as follows:¶

One or more hotels, usually in close proximity to the Facility, where the IETF has negotiated a group room rate for the purposes of the meeting.¶

The concept is further expanded in Section 3.2.4 of [RFC8718]:¶

Overflow Hotels can be placed under contract, within convenient travel time to and from the Facility and at a variety of guest room rates¶

4.3.2. Discussion

The IASA has historically contracted with overflow hotels including those at other price points from the IETF Hotels. They were very underutilized by attendees, reflecting the general underutilization of IETF contracted room blocks and exposing the IASA to financial risk with little benefit to participants. As a result, the use of overflow hotels has reduced, and they are rarely contracted. However, due to the way they are incorporated into [RFC8718], there are still many who believe these are, or should be, a normal feature of IETF meetings.¶

4.3.3. Resolution: Clarification of Interpretation

To address this issue, the IASA should interpret any reference to Overflow Hotels as an entirely optional feature that the IASA can choose to provide at its own discretion.¶

4.4.1. Current Policy

Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.4 of [RFC8718] include the following requirements as important criteria:¶

• There are sufficient places (e.g., a mix of hallways, bars, meeting rooms, and restaurants) for people to hold ad hoc conversations and group discussions in the combination of spaces offered by the facilities, hotels, and bars/restaurants in the surrounding area, within walking distance (5-10 minutes).¶
• At least one IETF Hotel or the Facility has a space for use as a lounge, conducive to planned and ad hoc meetings and chatting, as well as a space for working online. There are tables with seating, convenient for small meetings with laptops. These can be at an open bar or casual restaurant. Preferably the lounge area is centrally located, permitting easy access to participants.¶

While not a formal requirement, a Terminal Room (described as a dedicated room with extended opening hours beyond the normal hours of IETF meetings), Ethernet connectivity, a printer, and a staffed help desk have been long-standing features of IETF meetings.¶

4.4.2. Discussion

Both the Lounge and the Terminal Room are used regularly but lightly, i.e., far below capacity. The reason for this is explained in the feedback to post-meeting surveys: Most participants want an immediately accessible ad hoc meeting space, which is best provided by plenty of hallway seating. The IASA has responded to this feedback by adopting a new practice of hiring in-hallway seating whenever that provided by the venue is insufficient.¶

Dedicated rooms, such as the Lounge or Terminal Room, or external facilities "within walking distance (5-10 minutes)" are unsuitable for the majority of participant needs, though there remains a need for quiet places to work between sessions.¶

4.4.3. Resolution: Update to RFC 8718

To address this issue, [RFC8718] is updated as follows:¶

1. Section 3.2.2 of [RFC8718] is updated so that the entry on ad hoc meeting space (first bullet) now reads:¶

   There are sufficient, easily accessible places within the Facility for people to hold ad hoc conversations and group discussions.¶

2. Section 3.2.4 of [RFC8718] is updated so that the entry on the lounge (sixth bullet) now reads:¶

   There are sufficient places within the Facility suitable for people to work online on their own devices.¶