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

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 10:12:54 -0700

Did not see any responses to Mary's posting, but I think it focuses on 
some practical issues we should discuss and resolve explicitly:

On 7/19/2016 8:24 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> - Section 3.3.4, 5th bullet.  I think IETF needs to have a higher
> standard than adopting what might be the laws in the country in which
> the meeting is held.  I think IETF needs to decide what their standards
> are and I think
>  http://www.sigaccess.org/welcome-to-sigaccess/resources/
> accessible-conference-guide/ provides adequate guidelines.  It does a
> adequate (if not thorough) job of addressing my concerns about food
> provided at the meeting venue.  And, I think that makes a whole lot more
> sense than IAOC trying to figure out whether a venue meets the
> requirements of the local law (which could well NOT meet the
> accessibility requirements such as those described in draft-sullivan).

We currently apply well-intentioned-but-vague-and-subjective criteria 
concerning accessibility.  To the extent that we can find an existing 
organization's criteria that have proven viable and adopt them for our 
own use, it would probably be quite helpful.

The cited ACM Sig accessible conference guide looks reasonable, but we 
ought to get some documentation about having actually used it.

> - Section 3.3.5 2nd bullet. This oughtn't not be just Desired, it should
> be Mandatory as otherwise you are not meeting accessibility/disability
> requirements.

I agree, but note what seems to be a strong and persistent resistance to 
this in the community.

Given that having an adequate grocery nearby can simply and sufficiently 
resolve a wide range of special dietary needs, I don't fully understand 
the resistance.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 14:02:33 -0400

Mary/Dave,

    Some responses to both messages in-line below.

On 8/2/2016 1:12 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> requirements of the local law 
I figured that this requirement would translate into a contract clause
requiring conformance with laws and thereby serving as both an initial
level check and a path towards requesting fixes if issues are identified
during the meeting.  To me, I'd be sorry to see this mandatory
requirement disappear.

>> (which could well NOT meet the
I'm not sure what this means.  What are you thinking?

> I agree, but note what seems to be a strong and persistent resistance to 
I disagree -- I think Desired is right for this specific reference. 

I just don't see how meeting *all*  the considerations identified in the
link is feasible--
which is what mandatory means.  If we tried, my bet is that our meeting
venue choices would be limited to a *very* small set of venues and my
bet is unfavorable costs.  If memory serves, *none*of the venues we have
ever visited satisfy all the considerations in the document.

Now if someone wants to take a pass at an IETF Accessibility
Requirements document (i.e., and IETF version of the SIG document) that
would be a good place to identify the importance of the different
criteria and a replacement to the link in 3.3.4.  Such a document would
also need to address relative importance to non -disability related
criteria, e.g., geographic accessibility.

Lou

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 11:21:15 -0700

On 8/2/2016 11:02 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
> If we tried, my bet is that our meeting
> venue choices would be limited to a *very* small set of venues

Hence my suggestion that we research the history of actually applying 
the acm requirements.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT)

I know for a fact that the folks at AMS take accessibility quite
seriously and have rejected one venue where it would have been
difficult to get attendees in wheelchairs (or similar) in and
out of the meeting rooms. I agree that rather than focusing on
"local law" we should look at practical common-sense evaluations
of venues.

The food issue is more complicated because it varies so much by
country and "grocery store" may or may not be the right answer.
It's clearly a step in the right direction and should at least
be on the highly desirable list (after a suitable site visit).

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office:  +1 415-550-9433
Cell:    +1 415-370-4628
Web: protocoljournal.org
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 11:54:55 -0700

> seriously and have rejected one venue where it would have been

None of what's being discuss is should be taken as criticism of AMS. 
The problem is that we have no criteria.  In fact AMS is the reason I 
included 'well-intentioned'.  But absent criteria, we rely on whatever 
criteria the site visit team happen to invoke.  No matter how wonderful 
those visiting folk are, that's not an institutionally responsible 
model, in my view.

> "local law" we should look at practical common-sense evaluations

My own guess is that 'wheelchair access' is the single, major 
requirement.  (I was intrigued to note that in the UK it's referred to 
as 'stepless', which nicely implies a benefit to more than just 
wheelchair folk, is is correct.

> country and "grocery store" may or may not be the right answer.

What alternatives might be the right answer?

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 12:44:36 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Dave Crocker wrote:

> None of what's being discuss is should be taken as criticism of AMS. The
> problem is that we have no criteria.  In fact AMS is the reason I included
> 'well-intentioned'.  But absent criteria, we rely on whatever criteria the
> site visit team happen to invoke.  No matter how wonderful those visiting folk
> are, that's not an institutionally responsible model, in my view.

OK, so how about some language that says "reasonable access for people
with disabilities"? My point being that this has less to do with laws
and more to do with practical implementation, can we get people in and
out in a reasonable manner. My point about AMS (or any other future
secretariat function) is that this actually requires an inspection 
before the green or red light is given. 

> My own guess is that 'wheelchair access' is the single, major requirement.  (I
> was intrigued to note that in the UK it's referred to as 'stepless', which
> nicely implies a benefit to more than just wheelchair folk, is is correct.
 
Yes, in Japan it's called "barrier free," but basically means the same 
thing, for example MANY people have problems walking up or down 
stairs.
 
> What alternatives might be the right answer?

A clueful hotel (like the Shangri-La in Beijing) *could* be an answer. 
Again some language that takes into account this issue should indeed
be included.

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 16:27:26 -0700

> before the green or red light is given.

Any serious support for this topic imposes real -- and possibly 
substantial -- burden on staff.

That said, we need to decide whether whether the document merely has a 
statement of principle or whether it contains meaningful detail.

What you've proposed is a mandatory 'think about it' and maybe 'ask 
about it' and maybe 'look for it', but without any concrete substance to 
the 'it'.  There is no way to measure adequate performance.

It would essentially document the model that's been used for the last 25 
years.  If the community is satisfied with that, then fine.  My sense is 
that there is interest in specifying detail that is meaningful and explicit.

> Again some language that takes into account this issue should indeed

The problem with examples like that is that they are extremely 
exceptional and, from what I heard, quite accidental.  So yeah, the chef 
deserves all the kudos he got.  But do we think we can rely on that when 
it's needed?  I doubt it.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 17:07:51 -0700 (PDT)

> substantial -- burden on staff.

Yes, it does, and always has.

> 
> That said, we need to decide whether whether the document merely has 
> a statement of principle or whether it contains meaningful detail.
> 
> about it' and maybe 'look for it', but without any concrete 
> substance to the 'it'. There is no way to measure adequate 
> performance.

I have not "proposed" anything specific beyond saying that we need
to be able to get attendees in and out of meeting rooms in a 
reasonable way (stair-free, barrier-free, whatever). The language
can be fine-tuned or simply left to the professionals (see below).

> 
> It would essentially document the model that's been used for the 
> last 25 years.  If the community is satisfied with that, then fine.  
> My sense is that there is interest in specifying detail that is 
> meaningful and explicit.

I am sorry, but I don't get your concern. Selection of any venue is 
ALWAYS an excercise in evaluating an number of details, some requiring 
explicit expertise (NOC folks), some requiring negotiations and 
work-around with the hotel (or convention center). In Berlin, they 
split a room by building an "air wall", not ideal, but workable.

Saying that we need reasonable access for folks who cannot walk on 
stairs (using any common terminology for access) isn't rocket science
when we are dealing with professional conference organizers and 
professional meeting venues.

> The problem with examples like that is that they are extremely exceptional
> and, from what I heard, quite accidental.  So yeah, the chef deserves all the
> kudos he got.  But do we think we can rely on that when it's needed?  I doubt
> it.
> 
> d/
> 

Yes, I agree, you asked for some alternatives to "grocery store" so I 
gave you one example, it wasn't meant to be the one and only option,
and I also meant to suggest that "grocery store" can mean a wide range
of things.

This is yet another topic that requires some (perhaps substantial) 
research by someone on the ground during a site visit. My personal 
belief is that it is nearly impossible to satisfy such a requirement 
for all aspects of food, but that doesn't mean we should not at least 
put this topic on the list of things to consider. I'll just observe
that one member of our community adheres to a strict religious food
regime and has never once complained about lack of options, he brings
his own supplies. I am not suggesting that this is the ultimate 
answer, but every item added to the list of "must have" limits our
choices.

Ole

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 17:55:19 -0700

On 8/2/2016 5:07 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> ALWAYS an excercise in evaluating an number of details,

The point behind declaring some items mandatory is that they are then 
/not/ subject to juggling or subjective assessment.

>    In Berlin, they

( totally off-topic, but, since you mentioned it, i'd claim that one was 
arguable, given that the air gap let quite a bit of noise intrude on the 
second room. )

> professional meeting venues.

What you proffered was: "how about some language that says 'reasonable 
access for people with disabilities'"?  That's quite general and doesn't 
say anything about people who cannot walk, for example.

In any event, it was specific wording and so I took it to be a specific 
proposal.  Hence my comments.

As for rocket science, actually quite a bit of the support for folks 
with limitations has taken many years to develop and refine.  Possibly 
more years than it took to get to the moon...  And places often still 
get the details wrong.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 19:05:01 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016, Dave Crocker wrote:

> The point behind declaring some items mandatory is that they are then /not/
> subject to juggling or subjective assessment.

To be clear: I think "disabled access" or whatever the proper term is
should be MANDATORY. I do NOT thin that we should be in the business
of specifying building codes, minimum door widths and so on. If you 
want to refer to specific language for those issues (external 
document) that's fine, but I still believe the go/no-go decision will
be a matter of having professional conference folks look at the venue.

> arguable, given that the air gap let quite a bit of noise intrude on the

Indeed, which is why I said "not ideal," but probably not bad enough 
that it prevented us from coming back (yes, the issue was discussed
extensively).

> What you proffered was: "how about some language that says 'reasonable access
> for people with disabilities'"?  That's quite general and doesn't say anything
> about people who cannot walk, for example.

Again, I was specifically NOT offering language, but concept. I am 
sorry if that wasn't clear.

> As for rocket science, actually quite a bit of the support for folks with
> limitations has taken many years to develop and refine.  Possibly more years
> than it took to get to the moon...  And places often still get the details
> wrong.
> 
> d/

Yes, I know and I understand, so what do we do about it? Bring a 
"disability expert" along for the site visit? That might be a 
solution.

Ole

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:02:57 -0400

> thing, for example MANY people have problems walking up or down 

While I'm not familiar with anyone personally in IETF that has this as an
issue that isn't also chair-bound, this has been an issue for some of my
friends.  Even if three stairs are involved, it can serve as a significant
barrier for some people with walking issues, even when assistance such as
canes or crutches are involved.  

This seems to manifest in places that are partially accessible.  Some places
can only be reached by "just one or two" stairs and some have a portion of
the facility that is missing an elevator and is only accessible via
stairs - even if they're also an escalator.

-- Jeff