Subject: HR-RT Review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 17:22:21 +0200

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
Rights Review Team aims to implement and improve the guidelines for
human rights considerations provided in RFC8280, and seek to mitigate
potentially adverse human rights impacts that IETF and IRTF documents
might have.

Document: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

Review:
Having organized several international events for free and open
technology communities, also of the size of most IETF meetings
(1000-1500 participants, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/meeting/overview), we very much
appreciate the attention to details that the draft shows in regards to
venue selection objectives, criteria and requirements.

Review Date: 2018-04-18
IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-19

We identified room for potential improvements in a few sections of the
document, and are sharing them with the aim to contribute to strengthen
the accessibility and inclusiveness of future IETF meetings.

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"

The edit aims to:

* Clarify that the meeting wants to welcome both folks who already know
they want to participate, and folks who might have great contributions
to share but might not yet know about the IETF or how to join the
community. In this way the document makes explicit the intention to
proactively make participation accessible and welcoming to everyone,
newcomers included.

* State that modeling for the participation of a greater diversity of
perspectives is critical to achieve stronger and increasingly inclusive
technical outcomes.

2)
We find that the current draft is not totally consistent in regards to
the affordability of participation.

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".

Therefore, we think that the draft is not fully consistent/clear in
regards to how much affordability of participation is prioritized.

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."

Gender neutral restrooms are essential to contribute to the
inclusiveness of the an event venue.

They allow:

* Transgender, genderqueer, non-binary attendees to feel safe from being
harassed or attacked for their gender non-conformity;

* Carers of children who are not of the same gender to help their kids
to use the restroom when they are not old enough to go alone.

Note: Restrooms with installed urinals are not suitable to be used as
gender neutral restrooms, unless the urinals are made unavailable.
Therefore the most suitable restroom facilities to be used as gender
neutral restrooms are those with stalls.

3.2)
"The Meeting Venue should have at least one dedicated infant feeding
room and one family restroom."

See information and suggestions about feeding room settings and policy
at: ht
tp://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Breastfeeding_and_infant_care_support

Notes on terminology:

"Infant and children carers" is a recommended terminology in place of
the often used (and often incorrect) "mothers". Not all carers are mothers.

"Infant feeding" is a recommended terminology in place of the often used
(and often incorrect) "breastfeeding". Infants can be fed also with
bottle, formula, etc.

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."

This means that it would not be ok to have a working session/event
taking place in a smoky room, since this would not allow all folks who
want to participate to actually be in that room.

3.4)
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.

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.

5)
Correct typo in the title: "3.3. Other Consideraitons"

Edit: "3.3. Other Considerations"

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 12:59:27 -0400

> Team, is was done by Beatrice Martini and Niels ten Oever. The Human

Thank you.

    > proactively make participation accessible and welcoming to everyone,

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.

    > the affordability of participation.

This is my intepretation.

    > "Business travel" has commonly a higher cost than "self-funded budget

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.

    > inclusiveness of the an event venue.

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.

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.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:08:43 -0500

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):

> to say that we only want to facilitate partition from those who 

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?

> 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.

> hotel renovation cycles before it can be found often enough to be a

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.

> support families is to outside of the mtgvenue, and is with the nomcom

Agreed Michael. :-)

>> 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.

>> activities without being exposed to second-hand smoke."

I have no particular concerns about adding this in section 3.3, barring 
objections.

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

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> Edit: "3.3. Other Considerations"

Of course.

Thanks again for the great comments.

pr

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 13:08:34 +0200

Hi all,

Thanks for the great responses!

> outreach. Michael's reformulation makes that a bit clearer. Does that

Yes!

> want input that there are such Facilities available, lest the criteria

3.2.2 would be nice, also because asking hotels/venues for this also
would prompt them to include it in their renovation plans.

>> support families is to outside of the mtgvenue, and is with the nomcom

One does not exclude the other imho.

> IASA that this is going to be satisfiable by a reasonable number of

I would be surprised if this would not be the case.

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

Yes, sry.

> again, barring objections.

Thanks

> Thanks again for the great comments.

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

---

From: Beatrice Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 15:14:34 +0200

Hi Michael, hi Pete,

Thank you for your prompt responses.

Best,
Beatrice

On 20 April 2018 at 13:08, Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> HR-rt mailing list
> [email-masked]
> 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>

---

From: Mary B <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 10:08:34 -0500

I'm glad this discussion has come up.  I have one comment below [MB].

Regards,
Mary.

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> 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?
>
>
> 2)
> 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)
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 3.3)
[MB] I think this is a good thing as we had problems with this at the
Prague venue at one time due to the casino.  And, if we're concerned about
air quality and respiratory issues, can we please add to the last
sentence:  "..exposed to second-hand smoke and mold."   The venue in
Singapore had *a lot* of visible water damage, in particular on the
acoustic ceiling tiles that are well known to be a wonderful breeding
ground for mold.  While I might have been the only one that was literally
on the floor due to the extent of mold and the mycotoxins the molds
produce, others did experience respiratory issues and 25% of the population
has the genetic predisposition to get sick from mold exposure - the body
does not recognize and remove the toxins which then remain in the body and
contribute to chronic inflammation.  And, yes, the world is full of mold
and I spend a lot of time in the world and if a place impacts me to the
point it did in Singapore it is a *very* sick building.  [/MB]

3.4)
> issue beyond the question of venue selection, so I believe is out of scope
> for the document.
>
> sense. I'll again leave it to Eliot to see if he can come up with something.
>
> 5)

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 18:44:38 +0200

Hi Pete, Niels, and Michael,

Please see below:

> outreach. Michael's reformulation makes that a bit clearer. Does that

Propose to include the second sentence based on Niels' concurrence.

> accommodations. Perhaps we can clarify. Let's see if Eliot has any

How about the following:

          <t>The cost of guest rooms, meeting space, meeting food and
beverage
            is affordable, within the norms of business travel,    and
             there are at least some inexpensive and safe
            alternative  accommodations within easy reach to the Facility.

> 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
> 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.
>
>>> 3.3)
> I have no particular concerns about adding this in section 3.3,
> barring objections.

</editor hat>
I would go further.  I cannot remember a time when there was smoking at
an IETF meeting, except perhaps in a bar.  Therefore, I would claim that
this is an oversight by the working group and an example of a
requirement that was well understood by the Secretariat long before
someone came up with the term "mtgvenue".

Therefore, I would reformulate this as follows:

   "The Facility MUST be prohibit indoor smoking.  IETF Hotels and
Overflow Hotels MUST offer "No Smoking" rooms
     attendees.

>
>>> 3.4)
>
> There is no section 3.4 in the document. Did you mean for this to go
> in 3.3?
>
> Hotels should go in 3.3, I have no particular concerns about adding
> it, again, barring objections.

(still no editor hat)

My only question is whether these services are commonly offered.

If so,

<editor>

It is desirable that preferably the Facility, or failing that the IETF
Hotel(s), offer childcare services.

> 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.

<editor>

I am not clear on whether this text should go into this draft or into
the IASA's documentation.  The question I have is  this: is this a venue
selection criterion?  If so, and if IASA is reasonably aware of the
conflict, then I think it goes in this document.  I would suggest an
example would help us understand that.  If not, then I think what is
being asked for is a directive to IASA in this document to provide
attendees information about the above.

Is that about right?

Eliot

---

From: "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 22:53:58 +0000

My [GD] comments inline...

On 4/20/18, 9:45 AM, "ietf on behalf of Eliot Lear" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    >>> Venue.  Within reason, budget should not be a barrier to

    >>> accommodation."

    >> As a self-funded individual, I accept that I can't often afford to

    >> stay at

    How about the following:

    beverage

[GD]  This is too vague to properly evaluable against and is why the business-travel norms was used.    There are guidelines for business travel costs that are available that can guide evaluation of the criteria.   However, terms like "inexpensive" , "safe" are very subjective and are not practical to evaluate against when testing the criteria in the document.

It's also hard for IASA to evaluate the safety and cost of accommodations around the venue.  Sources such as hotels.com can be used to obtain a sense of availability of other hotel type accommodations within a distance from the venue - say .5 miles at the time of the evaluation, typically several years before the meeting, these rates are not negotiated or guaranteed to be available during the time of the meeting.  Safety, while quite obviously extremely important, is hard to evaluate for the alternative accommodations without IASA actually visiting them and evaluating them, and conditions may change in the 2-3 years between when the primary venue is vetting and contracted.

Also, what is inexpensive?   The meaning is very variable across regions and travelers.   Remember the goal of the document is to provide the IASA criteria to evaluate venues against. To do that the criteria needs to be as clear as it can be.

The current 3.2.2 text is something that can be evaluated against , the proposed text is not.

Recommend keep the current text.

[/GD]

    > simply be ignored.

[GD] The document is criteria used by IASA to vet a venue against, not a wish list to communicate to venues.  I do not wish to undermine aspirations, but this document is not the place to capture them.  It's used as an evaluation list IASA vet a venue against to determine if the venue meets the needs of the IETF community to meet at.   Putting it in the document does not serve to communicate the aspirations to the venue as we are not handing the document to the venues being evaluated.

This specific criteria is something that is also not yet very common in venues across the range of places the IETF meets, so we would be having to record nearly all venues as failing this criteria, yet still accepting them as acceptable IETF meeting venues which makes the criteria not very useful in raw terms of our vetting venues since the majority of venue we have and will met at will not pass this test, yet we will be able to hold successful meetings at the venue.   In other words the criteria would need to be ignored in almost every venue we accept.  That leaves it as aspirational only.

I suggest against putting any aspirational criteria in the document.

[/GD]

    </editor hat>

         attendees.

[GD].

This is a mix of policy and measurable criteria and hence only part of this should be in the document.

The policy part of it would be for the IESG to declare that IETF meetings are smoke free.  I'm not aware of this ever being explicitly stated, but the entire time since I've attended IETF meetings everyone has treated it as an unwritten policy.   Yet, still it wouldn't hurt for outside of this document that being declared to preemptively deal with the situation if it were to arise.  There may be regional rules that permit smoking in bars and casinos as distinguished from restaurants, we do not seem to have had problems locating venues that have smoking bans in place in restaurants and interior spaces such as corridors.

If there is no issue from the IESG in requiring a Smoke Free meeting venue, then measurable criteria that we could have is perhaps the following text:

    The facility MUST prohibit smoking in meeting rooms, interior common spaces and corridors, indoor lobby bars which are open to common spaces and corridors, and indoor restaurants.  IETF primary and secondary hotels MUST have blocks of rooms designated as "Non Smoking" guest rooms.

[\GD]

    (still no editor hat)

    If so,

    <editor>

[GD]

  On whether children are allowed in IETF meeting rooms, that is an IESG policy to set and outside the scope of the document.    If such a policy is set, it will need to take into consideration that events such as newcomers, welcome receptions, and socials do typically have alcohol served and may be subject to country/state regulations and venue policies on children being present.

There is also the consideration that children below a certain age may affect liability insurance.

As well, the Tuesday socials are arranged by the host and it's been at the hosts discretion as to if children are permitted or not, and what are the age restrictions if any.

In any case the policy of children in the IETF meetings proper is outside the scope of venue selection criteria.

  On the issue of child care facilities, the I'm worried about the criteria in the document being clear enough to evaluate against.  I am also concerned that this is beyond the core criteria to have successful meetings that the WG consensus had established for what is included in the document.

  For evaluation, it would be necessary to include things such as what age ranges the criteria needs to be evaluated for: babies;  1-2 year olds; 3-5 yr toddlers; 5-8 elementary age; 8-13; 13-18?    What hotels offer varies widely.   Also would these be during daytime 9-5 hours or the hours of the IETF meeting 8am-9pm?    Do they need to available on weekends as well?   Do meals need to provided?  What about cost? What about children with special needs?

  Also, what about safety ?  Are there requirements for physical safety of the child care facility? What are acceptable check in / check out procedures?  Are there requirements for the child care staff in terms of background checks and training?   Is CPR and first aid training certifications required?  Etc.  These are all very important criteria for parents to know, yet they get very detailed very fast, and I doubt the IASA is prepared to properly evaluate these tests.

What about facility insurance requirements?

I am also concerned about the implications of the IASA indicating that approved child care is available, and then if anything changes or worse if problems happen what responsibility and liability could fall on the IETF.

My overall points are:   1) This is far to vaguely specified to be an evaluation criteria;  2) More specific criteria are beyond the IASA's ability to evaluate; 3) there is potential financial impact and risk to the IETF to approve or indicate that acceptable child care is available.

I recommend against including it.

[/GD]

    >>> be attended by one participant with a guide dog, and another

    >>> participant

    >>> type of conflicting requirements that might occur. For example, it

    >>> could

    >>> This statement should also include information about who / what team

    >>> can

    <editor>

[GD]

I do not think this is venue selection criteria.  It is policy and conflict resolution during the running of the meetings which is outside of selecting a venue.  This document is explicitly about evaluating a venue for suitability,  and not how to perform the in room running of the meeting proper.   Keep in mind this document is used during venue selection to measure if a venue meets the requirements for the IETF community to meet there.   This document is not addressing during meeting practices, policies, or resolution of participant issues.  That’s the role of the IESG which run the meetings.

I recommend not adding it to the document.

[/GD]

-glenn

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 15:19:29 +1200

Glenn,

On 21/04/2018 10:53, Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) wrote:
...
>               <t>The cost of guest rooms, meeting space, meeting food and beverage
>                 alternative  accommodations within easy reach to the Facility
> 

The fact is that some people find the typical "official" IETF hotel rates
exceed their budget. Try "substantially cheaper than the cheapest official
hotel". I think IASA has enough common sense to know what "substantially"
means.

IASA surely already has to check the general safety of the area around the venue,
and in any case the cheaper hotels need to be reasonably close. We already have
text as follows:

   o  The Facility environs include budget hotels within convenient
      travel time, cost, and effort.

Maybe that's enough. It excludes isolated out-of-town venues and the like.

... 
> [GD] The document is criteria used by IASA to vet a venue against, not a wish list to communicate to venues.  I do not wish to undermine aspirations, but this document is not the place to capture t…

If the aspirations are clearly identified as such, I can't see any harm in
including them. IASA will use the hard criteria for evaluation, and may use
the aspirations for background.

    Brian

---

From: Mark Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 06:48:09 +0000 (UTC)

Personally, I would reverse the criteria and give priority to less expensive accomodation (to be defined) and busines-travel norm accomodation as as aspirational.

Is there no alternative to business-travel norms? 

    On Saturday, April 21, 2018, 2:19:29 PM GMT+11, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:  
 
 Glenn,

....

.... 

    Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 10:30:24 +0200

> Maybe that's enough. It excludes isolated out-of-town venues and the like.

Taken together what I am hearing is... leave it alone.

> the aspirations for background.

IMHO the way to read Section 3.3 is precisely to list aspirational
requirements.  That having been said, a reality check: my guess is that
AMSL and others will have a hard enough time evaluating against the
previous sections.  3.3 probably needs to be viewed in two lights:

  * A bonus.  You get it when you get it, but you don't cry when you don't.
  * Something the Secretariat should track.

Eliot

---

From: "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 14:55:25 +0000

Commenting on Brian's response to my comments and to Eliot's response to Brian.

On Apr 21, 2018, at 1:30 AM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

IMHO the way to read Section 3.3 is precisely to list aspirational requirements.  That having been said, a reality check: my guess is that AMSL and others will have a hard enough time evaluating against the previous sections.  3.3 probably needs to be viewed in two lights:

IMHO I disagree, what currently is in 3.3 is not aspiration, the items are obtainable in many venues we already use.  The items are in 3.3 not because they are not obtainable, they are there because the WG did not find consensus to make either critical (3.1) or important (3.2).

Items that are desirable, but not critical or important are not the same as aspirational.

Remember the sole purpose of section 3 is to vet and measure venues against one another from the IETF needs for successful meetings. It is meant not to advocate to venues.  In practice the list won't even likely be seen by anyone in a venue.

If we change it to be a list of aspirations the list would very quickly swell to a very large list of proposals from the community, which I will not even cite examples of so as not to encourage even more proposals to it, and the results of the list would be mostly unmet.   A long list where most of the items on the list are commonly unmet is not useful in evaluating venues.

If we have a desire as a community to create statements to venues on what we would like see them develop, that's an idea the IESG could consider for a different document the community could development, but this document is not that document.

I suggest we avoid the temptation to add aspirational items to section 3.3.

Glenn

---

From: "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 14:59:48 +0000

Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 20, 2018, at 8:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I agree that the current text communicates the concerns and intention sufficiently.

Glenn

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 00:02:20 +0200

Glenn,

On 21.04.18 16:55, Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) wrote:
> Commenting on Brian’s response to my comments and to Eliot’s response
> to Brian.
>
>> requirements.  That having been said, a reality check: my guess is
>> that AMSL and others will have a hard enough time evaluating against
>> the previous sections.  3.3 probably needs to be viewed in two lights:
>>
> IMHO I disagree, what currently is in 3.3 is not aspiration, the items
> are obtainable in many venues we already use.  The items are in 3.3
> not because they are not obtainable, they are there because the WG did
> not find consensus to make either critical (3.1) or important (3.2).

You're right and I was unclear: my point was really that if we are going
to list any aspirational requirements they have to go into Section 3.3
lest we have no hotels from which to select, and that for those that
gain WG consensus there is still value of listing them there.  As I
wrote in the bullets, these are requirements that are likely to be
gotten when you can get them, and they certainly are gotten from time to
time.   Also, the word "aspirational" isn't really good.  Many of the
requirements being discussed could certainly be met in some venues.
Whether those are otherwise acceptable to the IETF is an entirely
different matter.

Eliot

---

From: Beatrice Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 17:38:16 +0200

Hello,

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

> 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).

>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.

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

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

---

From: Beatrice Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:36:35 +0200

Hi Eliot,

Thank you for your feedback.

I will copy a few relevant excerpts from your message and follow up
accordingly.

>  alternative accommodations within easy reach to the Facility.

I very much appreciate the note on alternative accommodations.

About the smoke-free meeting spaces:
> I cannot remember a time when there was smoking at
> an IETF meeting, except perhaps in a bar.

When talking with Niels about the importance of accessibility to all event
spaces, it was mentioned that some IETF sessions are sometimes organized in
bar spaces. This is the detail that prompted us to suggest a specific note
about smoke-free spaces.

The policy about smoke-free spaces is something that usually depends on the
local legislation.

For example: I live in Berlin, where most bars can allow smoking in the
evening. It is not uncommon to attend a tech meetup hosted in a bar, and
find out that smoke is allowed in the space, because of how the bar is
managed. I have seen many people who were planning to join an event go back
home disheartened because of this issue.

So we thought it was worth specifying that the IETF organizers should make
sure that all sessions are scheduled in spaces where no smoke is allowed,
e.g. should double check with the venue management what are their own
policies in this regard and if they can meet the IEFT requirements.

> Hotel(s), offer childcare services.

Having organized international events in a few different countries, I can
say that it is very rare to find hotels and event spaces that provide
childcare services by default.

What is common is for the organizers of an event to contact the venue
and/or hotel and ask if they already have a list of trusted contacts to
hire licensed professionals able to provide the service on request. The
number of kids expected to attend would determine the suitable number of
carers needed. The carer(s) would come to the venue and set it up with toys
and/or any other specific supply needed to entertain the kids.

If the event space/hotel does not already have reference contacts for this
type of service, further information can usually be found through other
local service providers.

> conflict, then I think it goes in this document.

It is not a criterion. It is a consideration that specify how the event
organizers would manage conflicts that could possibly emerge from the
following item of "Section 3.2.2 Basic Venue Criteria": "The Facility is
accessible or reasonable accommodations can be made to allow access by
people with disabilities."

> I would suggest an
>  example would help us understand that.

You mean like the example mentioned in our message? That one is a real life
example, just happened at a work meeting I was running last week :)

> If not, then I think what is

As said, it is not a criterion. But it is an important information for:

* The team who selects the venue, to be aware of how the accessibility
criteria can sometime unfold, and prepare to address potential issues that
might arise;
* Participants, so that they know what to expect from the event
space/organization.

So, if not in this document's "Section 3.3 Other Considerations", a note on
this type of conflict and how it will be addressed could be included in:

* The documentation related to the event management on site;
* Information provided to participants to inform them about venue
accessibility.

Thank you!

Best,
Beatrice

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:05:13 -0400

Dear colleagues,

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 05:38:16PM +0200, Beatrice Martini wrote:
> A venue does not need to have restrooms already designated to be used as gender
> neutral facilities.

I do not exactly object to adding this criterion to section 3.2
somewhere, but I hope people understand what it means.  Items in that
section are things that we want to have, but that we can trade away
against other considerations.  Moreover, anything that is missed in
that section must be included in the announcement of the venue.
Finally, the negotiators are instructed that anything that meets the
criteria in this section is highly desirable compared to other
criteria.

I hope people are alert to the possibility that this would mean
trading off (say) affordability against the availability of gender
neutral facilities.

In any case, I think this does not belong in 3.2.2, which is about the
Venue, not the Facility or any IETF Hotel.  The Venue seems to wide to
talk about with this criterion.

I should note for the record that, while I am currently an IAOC member
(and its chair), I'm writing this in my capacity as a long participant
in the mtgvenue WG. 

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 16:44:27 -0700

given the long thread and having a bit of free time, i decided to read
through this document.  from the discussion, i was expecting a horrible
nit-picking, micro-management, exercise in ocd, and promised myself to
just hit delete and play my one get-out-of-snark card of the week.

to my shock and pleasure, the document is mostly simple and sensible.
section 3, meeting criteria, seems to have tried to be somewhat minimal;
but once you enter that rathole it becomes a twisty maze; as can be seen
in this thread.

i would just shove this out the door and get back to seeing how complex,
unimplementable, and unusable we can make the internet protocols.

randy

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:42:14 +0200

Hi Glenn,

Just on no smoking...

</editor hat>

On 21.04.18 00:53, Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) wrote:

> The policy part of it would be for the IESG to declare that IETF
> meetings are smoke free.
>

FWIW I believe the community can make this statement.

>   I'm not aware of this ever being explicitly stated, but the entire
> time since I've attended IETF meetings everyone has treated it as an
> unwritten policy.
>

Yup.

>    Yet, still it wouldn't hurt for outside of this document that being
> declared to preemptively deal with the situation if it were to arise. 
>

It seems to me we have the right vehicle in front of this for this
purpose.  As I wrote, it's running code.

> There may be regional rules that permit smoking in bars and casinos as
> distinguished from restaurants, we do not seem to have had problems
> locating venues that have smoking bans in place in restaurants and
> interior spaces such as corridors.
>

Yup.
>
>  
>
> If there is no issue from the IESG in requiring a Smoke Free meeting
> venue, then measurable criteria that we could have is perhaps the
> following text:
>
>  
>
>     The facility MUST prohibit smoking in meeting rooms, interior
> common spaces and corridors, indoor lobby bars which are open to
> common spaces and corridors, and indoor restaurants.  IETF primary and
> secondary hotels MUST have blocks of rooms designated as "Non Smoking"
> guest rooms.
>

I propose simply to include this text.

Eliot