Subject: [Mtgvenue] Secretariat review comments on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:16:43 -0500

Folks,

I've worked with the secretariat (thanks Laura!) to get this review put 
together. Thanks to you all for your patience; between my horrific work 
schedule and a serious family emergency, this took far longer than 
expected. Everything here seems pretty reasonable, but please raise 
objections if you see any problems. I've already worked on my shepherd's 
writeup for the IESG, and as soon as these issues are dealt with and 
Eliot pushes -10, I'll finalize the writeup and ship it for Last Call.

The secretariat also did a review of past venues and put together a 
spread sheet of how they would have fared using the current document as 
a guide. I'll forward that separately. The basic outcome is that only 
Beijing failed a "Mandatory", and there were assorted "Important"s 
violated here and there, but overall I think our document would have 
done its job well. Comments on that welcome.

Here are the comments on the main doc:

Substantive comments:

§3.2:

OLD
                                                                When a
    particular requirement in this section cannot be met, the IASA MUST
    notify the community at the time the venue is booked.  Furthermore,
    it may be appropriate for the IASA to assist those who, as a result,
    have been inconvenienced in some way.

"At the time the venue is booked" is unclear.  Prior to booking?  After 
booking?  As the contract is signed?  Actual simultaneous notification 
is not possible.  Also, it's not clear why it mentions assisting those 
“inconvenienced”.  Isn’t the point of all of this to spread the 
inconvenience?  Is everyone to be assisted at some point?

NEW
    Should any requirements in this section be unmet, IASA MUST notify
    the community at the time of the venue announcement.

§3.2.2:

OLD
    Facilities selected for IETF Meetings conform with local health,
    safety and accessibility laws and regulations.

Clarification is required.

NEW
    Each selected venue shall provide written assurance that they are in
    compliance with local health, safety and accessibility laws and
    regulations.

OLD
    A useful discussion
    of related considerations in evaluating this criterion is at:
    <http://www.sigaccess.org/welcome-to-sigaccess/resources/accessible-
    conference-guide/>

Strike this. It is not appropriate to reference this document as it 
applies specifically to US meetings.  Also, referring to the document 
suggests that the contents are applicable IETF criteria.

OLD
    o  The Facility is accessible by people with disabilities.  While we
       mandate wheelchair accessibility, other forms are important, and
       should be provided to the extent possible, based on anticipated
       needs of the community.

This sounds like it is giving greater consideration to those with 
disabilities that involve a wheelchair.

NEW
    o  The Facility is accessible or reasonable accommodations can be 
made
       to allow access by people with disabilities.

§3.2.4:

OLD
    o  At least one IETF Hotel has a space for use as a lounge, 
conducive
       to planned and ad hoc meetings and chatting, as well as working
       online.

Change 'IETF Hotel' to 'IETF Hotel or the Venue', and move this to 
section 3.2.2.

OLD
    ...             Preferably the lounge area is on the path between 
the
       meeting rooms and the hotel entrance, and is available all day 
and
       night.

This doesn't work if the lounge is in the IETF Hotel and we have a 
separate venue - "between the meeting rooms and hotel entrance" suggest 
the lounge is outside the hotel.

NEW
       Preferably the lounge is centrally located, permitting easy 
access to
       participants, and is available all day and night.

Bars and restaurants are not generally available all night, but so long 
as it is only "preferably", it's probably acceptable.

§3.3:

OLD
    It is desirable to enter into a multi-event contract with the
    Facility and IETF Hotels

Often, such a contract is with a hotel chain or brand and not an 
individual facility.

NEW
    It is desirable to enter into a multi-event contact with the 
Facility,
    the IETF Hotel or Hotel Chain

§4.3:

     With respect to IETF meetings, the Internet Society (ISOC):

     o  Executes...

     o  Collects....

     ISOC also provides...

and §4.4:

     ...work with the Internet Society to write the
     relevant contracts.

ISOC performs these items in name only.  The actual work is performed by 
the Secretariat. Perhaps something like: “ … instructs the 
Secretariat on behalf of the Internet Society to …” write the 
relevant contracts  AND … lead Venue contract negotiations...

§4.6 - "...leading Venue contract negotiation..."

Contract negotiations are performed by the secretariat. Similar 
clarification to 4.3 and 4.4.

Editorial comments:

§1¶1 - s/and facilities/facilities/
§2.1 - s/Why do we meet?/Why we meet/
         s/Where do we meet?/Where we meet/
§3.2 - s/more preferable than another/preferable to another/
§3.2.5 - Swap bullets 2 (groceries) and 3 (health)
§3.3 - Add bullets to the criteria
         s/site selection process/site visit
§4.1 - s/new RFCs/active RFCs
§5.2 - s/them being booked/booking
Appendix A and B, and references to them throughout -  It's not helpful 
to have the current version of the referenced documents included as they 
change frequently.  There should be a link (as was done for the 
normative references) that can be updated as necessary.
Appendix A - s/Site Qualification Visit Checklist/PreQualification RFP
              Strike the "Bits n Bytes" row

-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:28:50 +0200

At first sight I agree with all the proposed changes.

Saludos,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Mtgvenue <[email-masked]> en nombre de Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: martes, 17 de octubre de 2017, 20:16
Para: mtgvenue <[email-masked]>
Asunto: [Mtgvenue] Secretariat review comments on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

    Folks,

    
    
    Substantive comments:
    
    §3.2:
    
    OLD
                                                                    When a

    NEW
    
    §3.2.2:
    
    OLD

    NEW

    OLD
        A useful discussion

    OLD

    NEW
    
    §3.2.4:
    
    OLD

    OLD

    NEW

    §3.3:
    
    OLD

    NEW

    §4.3:

         o  Executes...
    
         o  Collects....
    
         ISOC also provides...
    
    and §4.4:

    

    Editorial comments:

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

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:24:31 +1300

Jordi,

> At first sight I agree with all the proposed changes.

...
>     disabilities that involve a wheelchair.

I thought we made an explicit choice to keep the wheelchair requirement.
It is not discriminatory against other disabilities in any way to say
this. It's simply a baseline, and there are countries where it cannot be
taken for granted.

     Brian

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:33:08 +0100

> I thought we made an explicit choice to keep the wheelchair requirement.

That's also my recollection.

I do however agree with the secretariat comment that we got
that wrong.

But I don't think it's a fatal flaw, the draft could progress
as-is IMO.

S.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 21:36:24 +0200

Hi Brian,

Is not this fulfilled with:

NEW

I’m also trying to be realistic, looking at the spreadsheet that was attached in the email after this one, it looks that even Prague, Taipei, Berlin and London, may not meet the access by people disabilities, or I misunderstood it?

I’m clearly against any discrimination, but also, I’m against “positive” discrimination, both sides are wrong.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Mtgvenue <[email-masked]> en nombre de Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Organización: University of Auckland
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: martes, 17 de octubre de 2017, 21:26
Para: <[email-masked]>, mtgvenue <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: [Mtgvenue] Secretariat review comments on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

    Jordi,

    ...

         Brian

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:07:43 -0700

Pete,

Overall looks good.  One question:

> ISOC performs these items in name only.  The actual work is performed by the Secretariat. Perhaps something like: “ … instructs the Secretariat on behalf of the Internet Society to …” write the relevant contracts  AND … lead Venue contract negotiations...
> 
> Contract negotiations are performed by the secretariat. Similar clarification to 4.3 and 4.4.
> 

What is the proposed text proposed for these sections?  It wasn’t clear to me.

Thanks,
Bob

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:22:03 -0500

On 17 Oct 2017, at 15:07, Bob Hinden wrote:

>> ISOC performs these items in name only.  The actual work is performed 
>> by the Secretariat. Perhaps something like: “ … instructs the 

My interpretation of the secretariat recommendation was something like 
this:

    With respect to IETF meetings, the Internet Society (ISOC) instructs
    the Secretariat on behalf of ISOC to:

    o  Execute...

    o  Collect...

    ISOC also instructs the Secretariat to provide...

And in 4.4:

    ...work with the Secretariat on behalf of the Internet Society...

In 4.6, it might be sufficient to change "leading Venue contract 
negotiation" to "working with the Secretariat on Venue contract 
negotiation".

But Eliot can come up with the precise text.

pr

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:24:42 -0500

> I thought we made an explicit choice to keep the wheelchair 

We still do in 3.1.

> this. It's simply a baseline, and there are countries where it cannot 

I think the suggestion is that repeating it in this paragraph in 3.2.2, 
in this particular way, sounds discriminatory, hence the suggested 
replacement.

pr

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 22:43:38 +0200

Hi Pete,

On 10/17/17 8:16 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I've worked with the secretariat (thanks Laura!) to get this review
> put together. Thanks to you all for your patience; between my horrific
> work schedule and a serious family emergency, this took far longer
> than expected. Everything here seems pretty reasonable, but please
> raise objections if you see any problems. I've already worked on my
> shepherd's writeup for the IESG, and as soon as these issues are dealt
> with and Eliot pushes -10, I'll finalize the writeup and ship it for
> Last Call.
>
I want to add my thanks to Laura.  I intend to address the review and WG
comments in the next several days, with the aim of having a draft out no
later than the Singapore deadline, and perhaps sooner.
> spread sheet of how they would have fared using the current document
> as a guide. I'll forward that separately. The basic outcome is that
> only Beijing failed a "Mandatory", and there were assorted
> "Important"s violated here and there, but overall I think our document
> would have done its job well. Comments on that welcome.
>
I had always thought that part of the intent of this document is for
both the secretariat and the IASA to use it as a means to attain
accommodations as did in fact happen the last time we were in Beijing. 
To me, Laura's spreadsheet read that, absent those accommodations, some
places would rank quite poorly.  I am slightly concerned that the text
does not capture that sentiment well enough.  If the secretariat can
wheel and deal to get a venue to the point where it rates well, as they
have in the past, then that's a job very well done (as has been done in
the past).  To this end, if people would like I would like to insert the
following sentence at the end of the first paragraph in the introduction:

NEW:

    The IASA may wish to use these criteria as a means to encourage
    perspective venues to improve their offerings.

I don't think we want to go further than that.

Eliot

> "At the time the venue is booked" is unclear.  Prior to booking? 
> After booking?  As the contract is signed?  Actual simultaneous
> notification is not possible.  Also, it's not clear why it mentions
> assisting those “inconvenienced”.  Isn’t the point of all of this to
> spread the inconvenience?  Is everyone to be assisted at some point?
>
> NEW
>    o  The Facility is accessible or reasonable accommodations can be made
>    o  At least one IETF Hotel has a space for use as a lounge, conducive
>    ...             Preferably the lounge area is on the path between the
>       meeting rooms and the hotel entrance, and is available all day and
>       night.
>
> separate venue - "between the meeting rooms and hotel entrance"
> suggest the lounge is outside the hotel.
>
> NEW
> Bars and restaurants are not generally available all night, but so
> long as it is only "preferably", it's probably acceptable.
>
> §3.3:
>
> OLD
>    It is desirable to enter into a multi-event contact with the Facility,
> Secretariat on behalf of the Internet Society to …” write the relevant
> contracts  AND … lead Venue contract negotiations...
>
> Appendix A and B, and references to them throughout -  It's not
> helpful to have the current version of the referenced documents
> included as they change frequently.  There should be a link (as was
> done for the normative references) that can be updated as necessary.

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:59:13 -0700

Hi Pete,

Thanks for the careful review.  Some thoughts in-line.

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> writeup for the IESG, and as soon as these issues are dealt with and Eliot
> pushes -10, I'll finalize the writeup and ship it for Last Call.
>
> The secretariat also did a review of past venues and put together a spread
> sheet of how they would have fared using the current document as a guide.
> I'll forward that separately. The basic outcome is that only Beijing failed
> a "Mandatory", and there were assorted "Important"s violated here and
> there, but overall I think our document would have done its job well.
> Comments on that welcome.
>
> booking?  As the contract is signed?  Actual simultaneous notification is
> not possible.  Also, it's not clear why it mentions assisting those
> While I don't object to the change to "venue announcement", I interpreted
the prior contract as "when the contract is signed", because that's how you
book a venue.  I think "IASA MUST notify the community when the contract is
signed." would be a closer match, in other words, but I'm fine with your
wording.

> §

>       to allow access by people with disabilities.
It is giving specific consideration to those who use a wheelchair, but it
is not clear to me why you think changing that is appropriate.   Being able
to move around the venue is pretty much required if you are attending an
IETF and are getting more than you would by being remote.

If you would like an update this so that it does not use that as an
example, I suggest:

NEW
The facilities is accessible to allow access by people with disabilities.
We mandate wheelchair accessibility, and other forms of accessibility or
reasonable accommodation should be provided to the extent possible based on
the anticipated needs of the community.

§3.2.4:
> Change 'IETF Hotel' to 'IETF Hotel or the Venue', and move this to section
> 3.2.2.
>
> OLD
> separate venue - "between the meeting rooms and hotel entrance" suggest the
> lounge is outside the hotel.
>
> NEW
>       Preferably the lounge is centrally located, permitting easy access to
> Bars and restaurants are not generally available all night, but so long as
> it is only "preferably", it's probably acceptable.
>
>
I would not have counted bars as acceptable lounges in any case, because
they tend to get cranky if you work online without buying drink or food.
Have we ever had a designated lounge that served food and drink?

> the Secretariat. Perhaps something like: “ … instructs the Secretariat on
> behalf of the Internet Society to …” write the relevant contracts  AND …
> lead Venue contract negotiations...
>
>
I'm not sure this change is worth it, since ISOC is the contracting party.
But I'm also not willing to fall on any pointed objects to avoid it.

Ted

> Appendix A and B, and references to them throughout -  It's not helpful to
> have the current version of the referenced documents included as they
> change frequently.  There should be a link (as was done for the normative
> references) that can be updated as necessary.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 13:31:52 +1300

>> I thought we made an explicit choice to keep the wheelchair 

Ah, OK then, thanks.

   Brian

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 22:00:00 -0500

On 17 Oct 2017, at 17:59, Ted Hardie wrote:

> Hi Pete,
>
> Thanks for the careful review.

Thanks entirely to the secretariat (and Laura in particular); I just 
held the pen and got it into a format reasonable for the list.

> Some thoughts in-line.

I'll answer what I can, and check with secretariat folks for things I 
can't. Trimming as I go along...

>> After

Probably "as soon as possible after the contract is signed" is better. I 
think the concern was that the timing is not clear.

> IETF and are getting more than you would by being remote.

See my reply to Brian.

>> long as

I'm not sure we've ever done so. Perhaps Eliot knows the reason the 
sentence is there in the first place?

>> by
>> Secretariat on

Well, at least the one on collecting registration fees seems a bit off 
the mark of describing the actual process, and I get the point of naming 
all of the actors.

pr

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:55:09 +0200

Hi,

Just on this one point:

> sentence is there in the first place?

This is not intended to be the terminal room, which may be where the
confusion is coming from.
We need a place to have ad hoc conversations such as bar bofs or smaller
meetings.  We also like that place to be able to house people like Dino,
who when not in a WG meeting, park it there and actually do code with a
small group of people.  I would not get too hung up on the word
"lounge".   I don't think the "all night" part reflects current
practice, however.  That could go if people are ok with it.

Eliot

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 14:50:15 +0200

Hi Pete,

Now doing the edit.  Please see comments in line:

>    the community at the time of the venue announcement.

Taking Ted's comment as well, my understanding is that venue
announcements do generally go out shortly after the contract is signed,
and so I'm not sure there's a real distinction.  Perhaps this leads us
to ask whether or not we want a separate notification from the venue
announcement.  I could see arguments either way.  As such, I suggest we
run with Laura's suggestion.

>    compliance with local health, safety and accessibility laws and

I think Laura's point here is that the burden needs to remain on the
venue and not on IASA, so that IASA does not need to become expert on
local laws.  What this means is that, at the time of booking, the venue
is in code.

Written as follows:

NEW:
>           Facilities selected for IETF Meetings SHALL
>           have provided written assurance that they are in
> compliance    with
>           local health, safety and accessibility laws and regulations,
>           and will remain in compliance throughout our stay

> suggests that the contents are applicable IETF criteria.

Removed.

>       to allow access by people with disabilities.

As others have pointed out, this separation was intentional, in part
because we could not mandate the full array of other requirements as a
matter of practicality, not preference. I propose to leave things as
they are.

> Change 'IETF Hotel' to 'IETF Hotel or the Venue', and move this to

I suggest we use "at least one IETF Hotel or the Facility".

>       participants, and is available all day and night.

Ok, and...

> long as it is only "preferably", it's probably acceptable.
Removed.
>    the IETF Hotel or Hotel Chain

How about: ... "IETF Hotels or their associated hotel chains" ...

>     With respect to IETF meetings, the Internet Society (ISOC):

Added "or the secretariat on ISOC's behalf" in the chapeau.
> contracts  AND … lead Venue contract negotiations...
And similarly amended.

> clarification to 4.3 and 4.4.
changed leading to "overseeing".

>              Strike the "Bits n Bytes" row

I've handled all of the above as editorial, except §5.2.  I would like
to handle that one, but need the appropriate URL.

Eliot

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:33:52 +0100

> On 18 Oct 2017, at 07:55, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Just on this one point:
> 
> 

I think I may have proposed the original text.

My rationale was that the venue/hotel (which are usually but not always combined) should have a suitable area between the entrance and the meeting space for people to hang out at sofas/chairs/tables (which may or may not serve snack/drinks) and bump into others and have some interesting discussions.  At an obvious place people walk past going in and out.  Some venue hotels we’ve used don’t have that; you just hit lifts up to the meeting rooms, and I found you then tend to have less ad-hoc chats.

There’s also the separate thing that’s emerged recently to have a “lounge” space that’s a communal meeting area, separate to the terminal room, where people can also hang out, but tables are set up to facilitate small round table discussions.  I think that’s also very useful to have.

I agree the all night part isn’t really needed.

Tim

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:26:55 -0500

Hi Eliot. Except as noted below, everything you proposed looks fine to 
me.

> matter of practicality, not preference. I propose to leave things as

As I said to Brian, the requirement for wheelchair accessibility is 
already noted in 3.1. No need to repeat it here. The new text does not 
changing the substance of the document.

> to handle that one, but need the appropriate URL.

Do you mean Appendix A and B? 5.2 is just a grammatical change. If you 
do mean the URLs for the Appendices, I'm sure Laura can provide those.

pr

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 07:23:57 +0200

> changing the substance of the document.

The purpose of that text was simply to explain why there are two, but I
have no problem making the change.
> do mean the URLs for the Appendices, I'm sure Laura can provide those.

Sorry- I meant Appendix A & B.