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

Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> Fri, 05 February 2021 04:17 UTC

Return-Path: <jay@ietf.org>
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 168CC3A1B8B; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 20:17:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 sksLRBjpD34q; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 20:17:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [158.140.230.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F28E3A1B89; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 20:17:45 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-22BD002A-F291-4F41-8F21-9B79BDB0989F
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 17:17:40 +1300
Message-Id: <F8ED2CCD-9FD2-4382-B89E-307F0945FC19@ietf.org>
References: <0AB6B02A-B917-4C8B-867E-F20DEF2FED2C@cisco.com>
Cc: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, mtgvenue@ietf.org, admin-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <0AB6B02A-B917-4C8B-867E-F20DEF2FED2C@cisco.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (18C66)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/cttgIRY61kWxVUauiLtkrDNazO8>
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: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 04:17:48 -0000


> On 4/02/2021, at 9:18 PM, Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> To add, one of the requirements is wheelchair accessibility.  Now… perhaps this is a given, these days, and so it’s not worth mentioning, but I did note its absence.

It’s not included because it’s something we can only properly assess by discussion with a specific venue or site visit and so not appropriate for this step, which is a remote non-contact assessment. 

>  Personally I wouldn’t complain if you applied a more general ADA-like requirement, but that isn’t what the doc says, for reasons quite honestly I don’t remember.
> 
> Also, on human rights, there was a strong consensus at the time to not choose venues based on such a matter.  
> 
> This is captured in the following non-objective:
> 
>    Politics:
>       Endorsing or condemning particular countries, political paradigms,
>       laws, regulations, or policies.
> 
> 
> Our requirements are stated in terms of safety and/or security of the attendees, the likelihood of the ability of people to get to and from the venue, and the ability of attendees to have unimpeded Internet access. This may seem like a subtle difference, but the language of our requirements excludes HR so that it is clear we are not making a political statement by including or excluding a venue.  To do otherwise has implications for how the IETF is perceived, which itself might limit support for, and participation in, our community in ways we would wish it hadn’t.  

This comment is a bit cryptic but it sounds as if you are saying that we should consider the general level of crime/safety but we should not check that two specific segments of attendees, women and LGBT people, are equally as safe as heterosexual men (or ignore that information if brought to our attention)?

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director

> 
> Eliot
> 
> 
>>> On 4 Feb 2021, at 07:55, Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thank you Dhruv, I understand the error now. I will log this as an issue and amend the assessment form. 
>>> 
>>> Jay
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Jay Daley
>>> IETF Executive Director
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 4/02/2021, at 6:36 PM, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> -- 
>>> admin-discuss mailing list
>>> admin-discuss@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/admin-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> Mtgvenue@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue