Re: [RTG-DIR] [Mtgvenue] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-12

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

On 05/02/2018 15:40, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Hi Stewart,
>
> Thanks for the review. Just on the things that Eliot hasn't already 
> covered
>
> On 5 Feb 2018, at 5:04, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
>> Major Issues:
>>
>>    o  The Facility and IETF Hotels MUST provide wheelchair access to
>>       accommodate the number of people who are anticipated to require
>>       it.
>>
>> and
>>
>>    o  The Facility is accessible or reasonable accommodations can be
>>       made to allow access by people with disabilities.
>>
>> SB> I am not an expert but I think more than just simple wheelchair
>> SB> access is required, also you need a set of suitable facilities in 
>> the
>> meeting SB> facility and in at least one hotel and its environs. SB> 
>> SB> I
>> assume that there is some code of practice that can and should SB> be
>> referenced here.
>
> There was considerable discussion on this issue; perhaps I should have 
> included this specifically in the shepherd report. Here's what I last 
> posted to a question about this:
>
> -
> The way I have thought about the distinction is that things in 3.1 are 
> things for which IASA (or the secretariat for most practical purposes) 
> would have to come to the community and get consensus to do something 
> different before they contract. Things in 3.2 they can use their 
> expertise and best judgement and make the contract, but even so they 
> must notify the community that they are doing so.
>
> So in the case of accessibility, the inability to have wheelchair 
> access at the Facility or Hotels is a showstopper; there is no 
> reasonable accommodation that can be made for wheelchair users that 
> involves not being able to access a location with their wheelchair. If 
> IASA thinks that such a facility is still acceptable, they have to 
> make their case to the IETF community first and get consensus. For 
> other disabilities, IASA is supposed to use their expertise (or that 
> of others they enlist) to make sure that the facility is accessible or 
> that reasonable accommodations can be made, and might judge that, 
> while a particular normal accommodation for a particular disability is 
> not available, a facility is nonetheless acceptable. They still must 
> notify the community in this case, and bad things might happen if the 
> community finds that they have made a poor judgement, but they are not 
> expected clear a given lack of accommodation with the community every 
> time.

Actually it is more than the facility itself, it is the venue and 
transport to the venue, and there are a range of disabilities beyond 
mobility that we need to take into account.

If you want a high-level requirement it is presumably something like 
"that there is no reasonable impediment to a participant with mobility 
or sensory disability travelling to and from the venue, obtaining 
suitable accommodation at the venue, or being able to fully participate 
in all aspects of the meeting"

>
> -
>
> So with regard to referencing a "code of practice", the assumption in 
> this document is that, beyond wheelchair access, it is the IASA's 
> responsibility to choose the correct set of accessibility 
> requirements, which could of course change over time, and inform the 
> community if there is a departure from their expectations.
>
>> Where we meet?
>>       We meet in different locations globally, in order to spread the
>>       difficulty and cost of travel among active participants, balancing
>>       travel time and expense across the regions in which IETF
>>       participants are based.
>>
>> SB> Given the support and encouragement of remote participants, there 
>> ought to
>> be a note about sharing unreasonable time zone difference pain across 
>> the
>> spectrum of remote participants.
>
> I don't believe we currently do take that into account in location 
> selection (perhaps others can chime in), so this would be a new 
> requirement. We could bring this back to the WG to try and get 
> consensus around it, but that doesn't excite me. :-) I'll leave it to 
> my fearless AD to advise.

I suppose location is a proxy for this, but if we are trying to be 
inclusive we ought to be inclusive to both groups of participant.

>
>> 8.  Privacy Considerations
>>
>>    This note reveals no personally identifying information apart from
>>    its authorship.
>>
>> SB> This is true, but does spawn the question of whether privacy should
>> be a meeting location selection criteria?
>
> "I refer my Right Honourable Friend to the answer I gave some moments 
> ago." ;-) This sounds like a can of worms. I'll again wait for AD 
> direction.

Hm, I doubt that I will ever advice the Queen :)

- Stewart

>
> pr