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):
On 19 Apr 2018, at 11:59, Michael Richardson wrote:
Niels ten Oever <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
Thank you.
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"
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.
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?
2)
We find that the current draft is not totally consistent in regards
to
the affordability of participation.
This is my intepretation.
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".
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.
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)
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."
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.
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.
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.
Agreed Michael. :-)
On to the rest of your comments, Niels:
3.2)
"The Meeting Venue should have at least one dedicated infant feeding
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.
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."
I have no particular concerns about adding this in section 3.3, barring
objections.
3.4)
There is no section 3.4 in the document. Did you mean for this to go in
3.3?
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.
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.
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.
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.
5)
Correct typo in the title: "3.3. Other Consideraitons"
Edit: "3.3. Other Considerations"
Of course.
Thanks again for the great comments.
pr
