Subject: [Mtgvenue] Disability accessibilty requirements in draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-03

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 16:10:38 -0400

The following text is present in two forms in the document:

: An Optimal Facility for an IETF meeting is accessible by people
:      with disabilities.
:
:      *  The selected facility conforms with local accessibility laws
:         and regulations [Mandatory]

The intent here appears to be "the venue is accessible to those with
disabilities".  The requirement directly below constricts conformance with
"local laws", which might be a bit less stringent than those with
disabilities may need.

Obviously the venue must comply with their own laws.

If I had a useful citation of minimum standards, I'd point to that.  Since I
don't, I must simply raise the issue.

-- Jeff

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 13:24:38 -0700

I pointed Fred at some good links earlier.   I suspect he's awaiting text.
  I agree that "complies with local laws" is unlikely to be sufficient,
although it may be difficult to get much more than that.   This is a
problem that lots of cons have to deal with, and we should deal with it too.

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 17:27:32 -0400

On 7/10/2016 4:24 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I pointed Fred at some good links earlier.   I suspect he's awaiting
> text.   I agree that "complies with local laws" is unlikely to be
> sufficient, although it may be difficult to get much more than that.  
> This is a problem that lots of cons have to deal with, and we should
> deal with it too.
>
We (authors/contributors) had a bit of discussion on this.  It ended up
with the current text, plus the addition of:

      *  http://www.sigaccess.org/welcome-to-sigaccess/resources/
<http://www.sigaccess.org/welcome-to-sigaccess/resources/accessible-conference-guide/>
         accessible-conference-guide/
<http://www.sigaccess.org/welcome-to-sigaccess/resources/accessible-conference-guide/> provides a definition of related
         considerations that shall be used in evaluating this criterion.
         [Desired]

Lou

> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 21:12:31 +0000

> On Jul 10, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I pointed Fred at some good links earlier.   I suspect he's awaiting text.   I agree that "complies with local laws" is unlikely to be sufficient, although it may be difficult to get much more than that.   This is a problem that lots of cons have to deal with, and we should deal with it too.

Text would be helpful