Hi Michael, hi Pete,
Thank you for your prompt responses.On 20 April 2018 at 13:08, Niels ten Oever <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for the great responses!
Yes!
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?
>
3.2.2 would be nice, also because asking hotels/venues for this also
>>> 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.
>
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
Our pleasure!
>>> 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
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
_______________________________________________
HR-rt mailing list
HR-rt@xxxxxxxx
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hr-rt
--
Beatrice Martini
