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

[Beatrice Martini <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

Replying to a couple of comments. I will copy the relevant excerpts from
the text and follow up.

>>>> 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.

Unless a country's legislation is specifically against this use of public
facilities, this should not be too difficult to require/provide.

A venue does not need to have restrooms already designated to be used as
gender neutral facilities.

It is sufficient for the venue management to allow the event organizers to
set up one restroom of each floor as a gender neutral facility (e.g. if
there are urinals, making them temporarily unavailable; having a gender
neutral sign outside each repurposed facility).


>>>> 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.

I think it would be great to ask if this could be taken into consideration
as a new additional requirement.

>>>> 3.4)
>>
>> There is no section 3.4 in the document. Did you mean for this to go in
>> 3.3?

Apologies for the multiple numbering systems :)
There are the numbers from the draft, and then the numbers of our feedback
list (which include the ")" at the end).

The "3.4)" here refers to our list of feedback items. This is the fourth
feedback item of the third pat of our list, which opens saying:

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

I hope this clarifies.

Thanks!

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>