Subject: [Mtgvenue] Comments on draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:49:38 -0700

I read through this document and wanted to share some thoughts.

= General comments =

I think it would be helpful to make the organization of the document
more crisp. In various sections, the document lists principles, facts about
meeting participation, objectives, criteria, and requirements for the
meetings committee operation. If all of these need to be listed, they
should each be in a separate section. It's not clear to me that they do
all need to be listed, though. I think the core value of this document
would be in listing objectives and criteria. The other items are
explanatory and could be written up on a wiki or elsewhere.

For example, just looking at 3.1, this is how the items look to me:

Who are we? - facts 
Why do we meet? - objective
Where do we meet? - objective
Inclusiveness - objective
Internet Access - criteria
Focus - mostly criteria
Economics - criteria
Political considerations - facts, non-criteria (also I think this is
only naively true, see below)

Similarly, 3.1.1 contains a mix of criteria and requirements for
meetings committee operation. For example, for every city under
consideration, the meetings committee can research and carefully
consider health risks. That is not a criteria. It doesn't differentiate
between cities. It just tells the meetings committee what to do. For
this to be turned into actionable criteria, it would need to describe
(in some abstract way) what level of health risk would count against a
city in the venue selection process. I think all of these that are
phrased as directives to the meetings committee should be re-phrased as
criteria. Documentation of how the meetings committee works should go in
3.5, or in a separate document.

= Section 3.1 =

(a) Inclusiveness

      "This principle of inclusiveness militates against the selection
of venues within
      countries that impose visa regulations and/or laws that
      effectively exclude people on the basis of race, religion, gender,
      sexual orientation, or national origin, and to a lesser extent,
      reduces the likelihood of selecting countries that use such
      attributes to make entry difficult."

It's not clear to me that combining visa regulations and laws in this
sentence makes sense or captures the objective(s) we should be aiming
for. For one thing, "visa regulations that effectively exclude people on
the basis of ... national origin" is a strange construction. The whole
point of many visa regulations that I'm aware of is to set a different
standard for entry for people of certain national origins as compared to
others.

Re-phrasing this as an objective, I would suggest something like: 

      We would like to facilitate the onsite or remote participation of
      anyone who wants to be involved.  Every country has limits on who
      it will permit within its borders. Our inclusiveness objectives
are:
      
      (1) to minimize situations in which onerous entry regulations
prevent IETF participants from attending meetings, or failing that to
distribute meeting locations such that onerous entry regulations are not
always experienced by the same attendees;
      
      (2) to avoid meeting in countries with laws that
      effectively exclude people on the basis of race, religion, gender,
      sexual orientation, national origin, or gender identity.

(b) Political considerations

"we do not choose or not choose venues based on political criteria."

What does this mean exactly? We know that the IETF is getting paid by
local governments to hold meetings in many (but not all) locations. That
doesn't seem like an entirely apolitical activity. Furthermore, both of
the prongs of the inclusivity principle derive from actions that local
governments take and that we then consider in selecting venues. If none
of those are considered "political criteria" then what would be? Perhaps
there is a better way to phrase this that doesn't appear contradictory.

= Section 3.3.3 =

Do we have a definition that we're using for "unfiltered”?

= Section 3.3.4 =

"The Guest Rooms at the IETF hotel(s) are sufficient in number to
      house 1/3 or more of projected meeting attendees.  [Mandatory]"

Personally I would be interested in hearing from the IAOC about the
extent to which the pool of potential sites would be broadened if we
were to relax or do away with this requirement. From the outside this
seems like a limiting factor in the site selection, one that other
meetings/conferences don't feel the need to adhere to, and one that
isn't motivated by a compelling enough rationale to make it mandatory (convenience
doesn't quite count, IMO). With our meetings running for 10 hours per
day and increased ability to find overflow hotels with reasonable
Internet access, does this still need to be mandatory?

Cheers,
Alissa