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

Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> Thu, 04 February 2021 06:55 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 8AA303A127B; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 22:55:10 -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 b1PHmMVTNDjn; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 22:55:08 -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 399243A1270; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 22:55:08 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-F2C6E273-1EDF-4DE1-A7E8-812E5F13E402
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 19:55:06 +1300
Message-Id: <7A39E361-6EED-4157-82BB-B56E7921FECB@ietf.org>
References: <CAB75xn4N3zrfiHAdh_djQxui2-U5CutcN2sLzBE6DiWTm33QYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: mtgvenue@ietf.org, admin-discuss@ietf.org, Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn4N3zrfiHAdh_djQxui2-U5CutcN2sLzBE6DiWTm33QYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (18C66)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/gK4dSoDUNcB_wztIQCg5OS0zYgs>
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 06:55:11 -0000

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