Re: [Mtgvenue] [admin-discuss] Consultation on IETF Meeting venue assessment

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 04 February 2021 05:35 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024E53A1048; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 21:35:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HQvWdwLbStMb; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 21:35:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x134.google.com (mail-il1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DE8E3A1049; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 21:35:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x134.google.com with SMTP id d6so1510681ilo.6; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 21:35:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ktdn50Ul9Ph2c+tdc4DPa18si18Y4/nh4JBWty1Brio=; b=KQxjRL8ehjbb449BOp9Hq6TTqiBqdpvpA0qpDpWwJeQihCt6mKa1isLIMVCTSJ1Mec HY3Uh3ThSTY9B2i5IZQVPCSQ62fB5D4q9q0wiee+xWbnhMSJcIKrDKsmpGvgAAEGmAUv F5m22D7P2p26QsviQ3/wGDuIt3JXubvkPQq7ez6SEU45cibBWO4CP+7Rg06JMomQmkTM P/S1SEmwwAUaPheiDR63Du1xXjSvld/D8XaQGdJJGmWxuef0/5aVCOHi4n6rxoFkcY3L eb9+J3ncs8LYcIK+tQrtO/zjw1iXhnzHHdTiaDr6ulvo7/mebmh1ZcRV/K1hRe5zr4QL PbpQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ktdn50Ul9Ph2c+tdc4DPa18si18Y4/nh4JBWty1Brio=; b=XNhX/u3n+MKorYNSh1GpcqQUHKsCV6/uABKMZolLQb9ilTEnXmXMBv+nJDKuDsJdiP ILAoFshC52wwOv6MDTWydlg9OImPv82czuNIXdq1Tdajfy9vfuFwYOy5GKCMmT/LP+cM i5n3MjUBo5pT1UiokFs+6kR07KFo4IU8Nv46V/shsJE+Uq0/sxR2Cwzh+K+GC80v/hh6 jo4zxnU2DZu6F7yWqZQgNHBdrq2OPOxSLh5KZUuCGmSq8f1rL6E6n835EtP7+AqgiWwG GkZolLnBNNu45nMxemfHWu9sapzwan0p06jvKLujh/PQ9RH6EOAikVgMQep/GZ9Mb5SG 3kVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533kdpbilELxZwIlo7RR4J3gQrIvhyFzLw/tG77WaFwkUAGuzkXs fLQ46jkkNvLJFrwgVCi1tK74wj82IPH3MQecMmg3TjvNpk+TEg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy+s+EOVYTC0L7QqaQ+KFj4l8mq727fblzVcIvJ0KoX9Iy3IRcbmFeh2s9wCmoyylsx40QJ7DT9a8HzUmp9rww=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:5b08:: with SMTP id p8mr5502556ilb.124.1612416953717; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 21:35:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161223507892.29148.17335593472142475026@ietfa.amsl.com> <3188B5C4-D6F3-4E6A-A5F4-58C9AD19C648@cisco.com> <820DD700-D172-42E0-A779-65AD08908F48@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <820DD700-D172-42E0-A779-65AD08908F48@ietf.org>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:05:16 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn4N3zrfiHAdh_djQxui2-U5CutcN2sLzBE6DiWTm33QYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, mtgvenue@ietf.org, admin-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c1998c05ba7c13bf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/QaTDhs5JVBjufi1apTVxj7yi-4A>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] [admin-discuss] Consultation on IETF Meeting venue assessment
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <mtgvenue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mtgvenue/>
List-Post: <mailto:mtgvenue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 05:35:57 -0000

Hi Jay,

I agree with Stephen/Eliot. IMHO the "Internet Access" in RFC 8718 is not
fully aligned with the "Internet Freedom Score" at freedomhouse.org. For
one, RFC 8718 focuses on filtering on means of communication whereas
freedomhouse seems to focus on content filtering.

Looking at the map link -
https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fotn&year=20192019, we don't have
any country but Japan that meets the criteria in Asia. So, no Bangkok,
Singapore, or Seoul! And not sure how the city/venue exception may override
the mandatory criteria! Maybe that can be clarified. We should look for
sources that focus more on the means of Internet Access more closely
aligned to RFC 8718? In the absence of which, perhaps this should be a
subjective judgment call.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:32 AM Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi Eliot
>
> On 3/02/2021, at 9:47 AM, Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Hi Jay,
>
> I am uncomfortable with what I am reading.  The criteria you have listed
> don’t seem to me to be well correlated to RFC 8718.
>
>
> Each of the criteria is taken directly from RFC 8718, though with
> simplified language, and is marked as to whether that is a mandatory or
> important criteria in RFC 8718.  If the language simplification is a
> problem then please let me know.
>
>  Is it your intent to update 8718?
>
>
> No.  The intent is that RFC 8718 contains such requirements as that for
> "Internet Access", which we need to turn into an objective, fair and
> repeatable assessment process.  This is attempting to do that.  If you
> think we have misinterpreted the criteria then please let me know.
>
>  The goal is to have a successful meeting.  We have done so at two venues
> that your assessment criteria would reject, and conceivably do so in India
> and Mexico, which your criteria would also reject.
>
>
> In order to address any issue here I need detail - can you please specify
> why you think India and Mexico would be rejected using this assessment and
> how that indicates failings in the assessment?
>
> cheers
> Jay
>
>
> Eliot
>
>
>
> --
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> jay@ietf.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> admin-discuss mailing list
> admin-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/admin-discuss
>