Hi all, Thanks for the great responses! On 04/19/2018 11:08 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > 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? > Yes! >>> 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. > 3.2.2 would be nice, also because asking hotels/venues for this also would prompt them to include it in their renovation plans. >> 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. :-) One does not exclude the other imho. > > 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. > I would be surprised if this would not be the case. >>> 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? > Yes, sry. >>> 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. > Thanks >>> 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 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
