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"
