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

[Beatrice Martini <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michael, hi Pete,

Thank you for your prompt responses.

Best,
Beatrice

On 20 April 2018 at 13:08, Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for the great responses!
>
> On 04/19/2018 11:08 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> > Hi Niels,
> >
> > Thanks for the extensive review. Much appreciated. Many of Michael's
> > comments are spot on; I'll add my replies below (and trim a bit of the
> > explanatory text to save space):
> >
> > On 19 Apr 2018, at 11:59, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >
> >> Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >>> 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"
> >>
> >> I suggest you reword your suggestion to:
> >>    "We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote participation of
> >>    anyone who wants to be involved.  Widespread participation
> >>    contributes to the diversity of perspectives represented in the
> >> working sessions"
> >>
> >> the problem with the "and" in the sentence is that the sentence can
> >> otherwise be parsed
> >> to say that we only want to facilitate partition from those who
> >> contribute to
> >> increased diversity.
> >
> > I have to agree with Michael's suggestion. In addition to the possible
> > ambiguity, there was pretty explicit consensus in the WG that the
> > objective was to facilitate people who participants that want to
> > participate, and explicitly not to use venue selection for purposes of
> > outreach. Michael's reformulation makes that a bit clearer. Does that
> > satisfy your concern?
> >
>
> Yes!
>
> >>> 2)
> >>> We find that the current draft is not totally consistent in regards to
> >>> the affordability of participation.
> >>
> >> This is my intepretation.
> >>
> >>> 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".
> >>
> >> The intention is that the *venue* (primary hotel) should not be so
> >> expensive as to be prohibitively expensive to even those on "business
> >> travel".  There are locations (resorts in really exotic locations) where
> >> the nightly price of room is like $500/night.  The intention is to rule
> >> those out.
> >> As a self-funded individual, I accept that I can't often afford to
> >> stay at
> >> the primary hotel, but I will find something acceptable within a few
> >> blocks.  So that's how section 2 and 3.2.2 are reconciled.
> >
> > Michael's explanation is correct, but I take your point that "guest
> > rooms" in the second bullet of 3.2.2 sounds like the combination of
> > rooms in the IETF Hotels, Overflow Hotels, and other nearby local
> > accommodations. Perhaps we can clarify. Let's see if Eliot has any
> > thoughts.
> >
> >>> 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."
> >>
> >> I'd like to support adding this as aspirational, but it's gonna be two
> >> hotel renovation cycles before it can be found often enough to be a
> >> reasonable criteria.
> >
> > Given that the 3.1 criteria are those for which IASA MUST NOT enter into
> > a contract if they are missing, I don't see how we can make this
> > mandatory at this point, unless IASA can tell us that a sufficient
> > number of Facilities meet this criterion already. Perhaps something
> > along these lines could be added to 3.2.2, but even there I think we'd
> > want input that there are such Facilities available, lest the criteria
> > simply be ignored.
> >
>
> 3.2.2 would be nice, also because asking hotels/venues for this also
> would prompt them to include it in their renovation plans.
>
> >> On the topic of being family friendly,  the major thing we can do to
> >> support families is to outside of the mtgvenue, and is with the nomcom
> >> eligibility criteria.
> >
> > Agreed Michael. :-)
>
> One does not exclude the other imho.
>
> >
> > On to the rest of your comments, Niels:
> >
> >>> 3.2)
> >>> "The Meeting Venue should have at least one dedicated infant feeding
> >>> room and one family restroom."
> >
> > I presume you mean "Facility" here and not "Meeting Venue", correct?
> > Like the gender neutral restrooms, I think we probably want to hear from
> > IASA that this is going to be satisfiable by a reasonable number of
> > Facilities.
> >
>
> I would be surprised if this would not be the case.
>
> >>> 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."
> >
> > I have no particular concerns about adding this in section 3.3, barring
> > objections.
> >
> >>> 3.4)
> >
> > There is no section 3.4 in the document. Did you mean for this to go in
> > 3.3?
> >
>
> Yes, sry.
>
> >>> 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.
> >
> > Whether children can be present in meeting rooms sounds like a policy
> > issue beyond the question of venue selection, so I believe is out of
> > scope for the document.
> >
> > As for whether having childcare services available at the Facility or
> > Hotels should go in 3.3, I have no particular concerns about adding it,
> > again, barring objections.
> >
>
> Thanks
>
> >>> 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.
> >
> > I think adding a short informational note to that bullet in 3.2.2 makes
> > sense. I'll again leave it to Eliot to see if he can come up with
> > something.
> >
> >>> 5)
> >>> Correct typo in the title: "3.3. Other Consideraitons"
> >>>
> >>> Edit: "3.3. Other Considerations"
> >
> > Of course.
> >
> > Thanks again for the great comments.
> >
> > pr
>
> Our pleasure!
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
> --
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
>
> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>                      678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>
> _______________________________________________
> HR-rt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hr-rt
>



-- 
Beatrice Martini
Twitter <https://twitter.com/beatricemartini> / Blog
<http://beatricemartini.it/blog/> / Newsletter <http://eepurl.com/bbDuEn>