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