[HT-rt] HR-RT Review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

[Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>]

This is a review done within the framework of the Human Rights Review
Team, is was done by Beatrice Martini and Niels ten Oever. The Human
Rights Review Team aims to implement and improve the guidelines for
human rights considerations provided in RFC8280, and seek to mitigate
potentially adverse human rights impacts that IETF and IRTF documents
might have.


Document: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

Review:
Having organized several international events for free and open
technology communities, also of the size of most IETF meetings
(1000-1500 participants, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/meeting/overview), we very much
appreciate the attention to details that the draft shows in regards to
venue selection objectives, criteria and requirements.

Review Date: 2018-04-18
IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-19

We identified room for potential improvements in a few sections of the
document, and are sharing them with the aim to contribute to strengthen
the accessibility and inclusiveness of future IETF meetings.

1)
Section: 2. Venue Selection Objectives/ 2.1. Core Values

Text from draft:
"Inclusiveness: We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote
participation of anyone who wants to be involved."

We suggest an edit along these lines:
"We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote participation of
anyone who wants to be involved and who may contribute to the diversity
of perspectives represented in the working sessions"

The edit aims to:

* Clarify that the meeting wants to welcome both folks who already know
they want to participate, and folks who might have great contributions
to share but might not yet know about the IETF or how to join the
community. In this way the document makes explicit the intention to
proactively make participation accessible and welcoming to everyone,
newcomers included.

* State that modeling for the participation of a greater diversity of
perspectives is critical to achieve stronger and increasingly inclusive
technical outcomes.

2)
We find that the current draft is not totally consistent in regards to
the affordability of participation.

Initially, it acknowledges that many participants are self-funded, and
that budget solutions should be available. That's great.

>From Section 2.  Venue Selection Objectives/ 2.1. Core Values:
"Economics:
Meeting attendees participate as individuals. While many are
underwritten by employers or sponsors, many are self-funded.  In order
to reduce participation costs and travel effort, we therefore seek
locations that provide convenient budget alternatives for food and
lodging, and which minimize travel segments from major airports to the
Venue.  Within reason, budget should not be a barrier to accommodation."

But then, in Section 3.2.2, things sounds less affordable.

>From Section 3.2.2 Basic Venue Criteria:
"The cost of guest rooms, meeting space, meeting food and beverage is
affordable, within the norms of business travel."

"Business travel" has commonly a higher cost than "self-funded budget
travel".

Therefore, we think that the draft is not fully consistent/clear in
regards to how much affordability of participation is prioritized.

3)
We invite to consider the addition of a few items to Section 3.2.2.
Basic Venue Criteria.

3.1)
"All Meeting Venues should have at least one gender neutral restroom
with stalls on each floor."

Gender neutral restrooms are essential to contribute to the
inclusiveness of the an event venue.

They allow:

* Transgender, genderqueer, non-binary attendees to feel safe from being
harassed or attacked for their gender non-conformity;

* Carers of children who are not of the same gender to help their kids
to use the restroom when they are not old enough to go alone.

Note: Restrooms with installed urinals are not suitable to be used as
gender neutral restrooms, unless the urinals are made unavailable.
Therefore the most suitable restroom facilities to be used as gender
neutral restrooms are those with stalls.

3.2)
"The Meeting Venue should have at least one dedicated infant feeding
room and one family restroom."

See information and suggestions about feeding room settings and policy
at: ht
tp://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Breastfeeding_and_infant_care_support

Notes on terminology:

"Infant and children carers" is a recommended terminology in place of
the often used (and often incorrect) "mothers". Not all carers are mothers.

"Infant feeding" is a recommended terminology in place of the often used
(and often incorrect) "breastfeeding". Infants can be fed also with
bottle, formula, etc.

3.3)
"The event should be accessible to non-smokers and those with
respiratory conditions. Therefore all meeting spaces during daytime and
nighttime should make it possible to fully participate in the scheduled
activities without being exposed to second-hand smoke."

This means that it would not be ok to have a working session/event
taking place in a smoky room, since this would not allow all folks who
want to participate to actually be in that room.

3.4)
We believe that supporting parents with small children attending events
is a great step forward towards inclusivity.

We would like the document to address this aspect in regards to venue
requirements.

In particular, it would be helpful for the document to provide
information about the following:

* Can participants feel comfortable and welcome to have their kid(s)
with them at the event? If so, are kids under a certain age not allowed
to be in session rooms?

* Would the venue provide a childcare space and service, like a
play/activity room managed by a licensed childcare professional? See
further information about childcare at events at:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Childcare

If the organization determines that children should not be allowed to
access meetings, and/or no childcare space and service can be provided,
it would anyway be important for the document to acknowledge that the
organization is aware of the limitation that this would constitute and
that this might hinder the participation of some attendees.

4)
We invite to consider the addition of one item to Section 3.3 Other
Considerations.

Section 3.2.2 Basic Venue Criteria says:
"The Facility is accessible or reasonable accommodations can be made to
allow access by people with disabilities."

This is great!
At the same time, sometimes one person's required accommodation might
create a barrier for someone else. For example, the same session could
be attended by one participant with a guide dog, and another participant
with a severe allergy to dogs.

It would be ideal if the document could mention a consideration on this
type of conflicting requirements that might occur. For example, it could
say that, in the full respect of everyone's needs, the organizing team
will aim to find the most suitable solution on a case by case basis.

This statement should also include information about who / what team can
be contacted to ask for information in case of need.

5)
Correct typo in the title: "3.3. Other Consideraitons"

Edit: "3.3. Other Considerations"