Subject: [Mtgvenue] draft about prioritized objectives

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:38:03 -0400

Dear colleagues,

One of the things that has been bothering me about the discussion so
far is that everyone notes that this is a trade-off; yet, if I read
the current baker-mtgvenue draft, I still don't know _how_ to make
those trade-offs.

I complained about this to Alissa Cooper, who pointed out to me that
if I didn't like it the I-D repo was wide open.  The initial result of
our discussion is in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-mtgvenue-decisions/.

I think it's far to say we hardly expect this is the final word in
what the right objectives ought to be.  But I at least think something
like this kind of advice to decision-makers is going to be necessary
or we're going to continue to have problems as a community.  I hope
this is a useful contribution to the discussion.  I solicit your
comments and reactions.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 13:33:16 -0700

Hi Andrew,
>or we're going to continue to have problems as a community.  I hope

It's good to have your thinking as a draft.  I looked at the draft quickly.

Does visa issues [1] fall under distribution of travel 
difficulty?  As Alejandro Acosta mentioned, citizens from some 
countries encounter difficulties obtaining a visa.  I suggest taking 
that into consideration.

Section 2.3 discusses about "an extremely negative consideration were 
mobile networks outside the hotels to be subject to significant 
filtering or interference".  What about hotel networks (not the main 
hotel) blocking mail submission?

Affordability (Section 2.5) discusses about attendees who have 
limited employer support for travel.  Is what is being suggested like 
having some affordable hotels near the venue?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 17:42:14 -0400

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 01:33:16PM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
> 
> Does visa issues [1] fall under distribution of travel difficulty?  As
> Alejandro Acosta mentioned, citizens from some countries encounter
> difficulties obtaining a visa.  I suggest taking that into consideration.

This is intended to be covered under 2.1 with this:

        Informal but
      widely-experienced (or widely-announced) persistent discrimination
      of the same sort, particularly at the point of immigration, should
      also be treated as an extremely negative consideration, but is not
      the same as formal legal sanction against an identifiable group.

There are really two cases here: the cases that are widely reported
and unacknowledged (we can see these when some country appears to have
a "go slow" rule for certain classes of travellers), and the cases
where countries have a clear policy that is announced as part of the
administrative reality but is not actually part of the law.  When
Canada started imposing visas on visitors from Mexico and Czechia
(then called Czech Republic), for instance, it was an official change
only to requiring such visas (which would not meet the negative
criteria here); but actual visitors reported difficulty, which
probably means that the conditions in Canada met the first of these
conditions.  
 
> Section 2.3 discusses about "an extremely negative consideration were mobile
> networks outside the hotels to be subject to significant filtering or
> interference".  What about hotel networks (not the main hotel) blocking mail
> submission?

I think that's covered by this:

   Unfettered high-bandwidth access to the entire Internet, from all the
   hotels associated with the meeting, is a necessary criterion for a
   successful meeting.

Or do you mean "hotels that are not IETF hotels at all"?  I think it
is practically possible to investigate whether at least some mobile
operators in the country can offer unfettered Internet access.  I
don't think it's practically possible to do an audit of hotels with
which we have no relationship, so I don't think it should be included.
 
> Affordability (Section 2.5) discusses about attendees who have limited
> employer support for travel.  Is what is being suggested like having some
> affordable hotels near the venue?

I, at least, do not intend to prescribe any particular solution.  These
are just supposed to be objectives that guide decision-makers in their
choices.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:08:08 -0700

Hi Andrew,
>which we have no relationship, so I don't think it should be included.

I meant the Headquarter Hotel, Overflow Hotel and Alternative Hotels.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 18:24:38 -0400

> I meant the Headquarter Hotel, Overflow Hotel and Alternative Hotels.

Then I think it's covered by the text I quoted.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 07:24:28 +0000 (UTC)

Andrew and Alissa,
First, thanks for putting this together.   I believe that this is the discussion that needs to be had.
I have a question about section 2.1: Inclusiveness
The section deals with "formal legal exclusions or differential treatments".
I wonder if you might clarify that a bit.   Do you mean legal exclusion or differential treatment of the attendee him/herself? 
Thanks,

Nalini Elkins
Inside Products, Inc.
www.insidethestack.com
(831) 659-8360

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 23:02:45 +1200

One kind-of-obvious aspect that isn't mentioned is "Effectiveness" - does
the venue have sufficient well-equipped meeting rooms, space for chatting, etc.
The Secretariat of course always worries about this, but it does need to be
mentioned.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 11:23:22 -0400

> I wonder if you might clarify that a bit.   Do you mean legal exclusion or differential treatment of the attendee him/herself? 

Speaking for myself, I intended this to be a sort of overarching
principle: if there's an active legal status that somehow calls out
people for differential treatment according to some classification,
then that ought to be covered.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 11:25:03 -0400

Hi,

> The Secretariat of course always worries about this, but it does need to be

This suggests to me that the draft is not as clear as it ought to be
that it's supposed to complement, not replace, the draft-baker I-D.
In an update, we can try to make that plainer.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]