Align mandatories with values

From Laura Nugent: have been following the discussion with great interest and, from where I sit, it seems we have lost sight of the bigger picture and are focusing on details instead. Following is my attempt to look from a fresh perspective at the purpose of this document.

My questions for this group are:
A. Do the criteria identified in the document adequately represent the IETF core values as they apply to venue selection? B. Does the document provide useful guidance in selecting venues (i.e. can it be implemented and if it can, are the results appropriate)?

Core Values - I believe we need to ensure this document actually reflects IETF core values. To accomplish this, I suggest we consolidate the items listed into three (or two) values, as some of the items listed don’t actually appear to be IETF core values in themselves. I suggest: a. Advancing the IETF Mission - this would include all the basic meeting requirements that allow IETF to function and continue to function and do the standards development work "We meet to pursue the IETF mission, in part, through the advancement and development of Internet Drafts and RFCs. We also seek to strengthen the IETF community, facilitate attendee participation in IETF projects and activities and enable cross-polination of ideas and technologies.”

b. Internet Access - this would include everything related to the IETF meeting network. This could easily be part of “Advancing the IETF Mission”, or could be listed separately for emphasis: "We write specifications for the Internet and use it heavily. We require, at the Facility, Headquarters Hotel and overflow hotels, unfiltered access to the Internet and attendee corporate networks, which are typically accessed through encrypted VPNs. We also need open network access available at high enough data rates to support our work, including the support of remote participants.”

c. Inclusiveness - this would include the current items listed under inclusiveness as well as “Economics” and “Least Astonishment”: "We seek to facilitate onsite and remote participation of anyone interested in being involved with the IETF.
1. Entry restrictions - Every country has limits on who it will permit within its borders. However, the ETtF seeks to minimize situations in which onerous entry regulations prevent participants from attending meetings, or failing that, to distribute the meeting locations such that onerous entry regulations are not always experienced by the same attendees
  1. Discrimination - The IETF seeks 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
  2. Burden sharing - We meet in a variety of global locations in order to spread the difficulty and cost of travel among active participants, balancing travel time and expense across the regions in which IETF participants are based. Meeting attendees participate as individuals. While many are underwritten by employers or sponsors, many are self-funded. In order to reduce participation costs and travel effort, we seek locations that provide convenient budget alternatives for food and lodging. Within reason, budget should not be a barrier to entry.
  3. Understanding risks - The community needs the opportunity to engage early to express views on prospective selectioins so that community members, the IAOC, and the IAD can discuss prospective venue, concerns or issues long before a venue contract is considered."

I have created a spreadsheet (attached), organizing the criteria based on the core values (core values as consolidated, above and criteria as modified in my further comments, below). Hopefully looking at the criteria from this perspective will help us to understand whether the criteria adequately reflect our core values.

Criteria - There are a number of items included as criteria that I would eliminate or modify for a variety of reasons, explained below: a. "Available travel issue assessments…" I believe this should be eliminated as it is not a criteria but part of a process.

b. "The facility permits easy wheelchair access” c. “The Facility is accessible by people with disabilities” d. “The IETF Hotel(s) permit easy wheelchair access”
e. “The IETF Hotel(s) are accessible by people with disabilities” There are laws which govern accommodations for disabilities, which laws vary from location to location. We are legally bound to comply with local disability laws. Singling out these four items is misleading, in my mind, as it appears to limit our obligation and to exclude some disabilities. I suggest, in place of these four items, we instead borrow the introductory text as the criteria to govern this concern: “Facilities selected for IETF meetings conform with local health, safety and accessibility laws and regulations.”

f. “The Facility environs include grocery shopping that will accommodate a wide variety…” I suggest that this be combined with the other criteria related to dietary requirements for simplicity and to avoid redundancy: “A range of dietary requirements can be satisfied through onsite service or through access to an adequate grocery within a reasonable walking distance or conveniently accessible by a short taxi, bus or subway ride."

g. “The economics of the venue allow…” I suggest, for clarity, that this criteria be reworded as follows: “Anticipated meeting revenues are greater than anticipated meeting expenses ”

h. “The Facility’s support technologies and services…” I suggest that this be simplified to a more general statement so as to encompass, for example, F&B services. Further, the reference to costs should be eliminated as it is covered by item g, above. “The Facility’s support technologies and services are sufficient for the anticipated activities of the meeting, or the Facility is willing to add infrastructure to support technologies and services, or these technologies and services may be provided by a third party."

i. “The IETF Hotell(s) directly provide, or else permit and facilitate…” j. “The overflow hotels provide reasonable, reliable, unfiltered…” Reference to the inclusion of Internet in the guest room rate should be eliminated. Assessment of costs is addressed in another criteria (“The cost of guest rooms, meeting space…”).

k. “The IETF Headquarters Hotel has a space for use as a lounge…” I suggest the description of this criteria be made more concise and implmenetable, as follows: “The IETF Headquarters Hotel has a space for use as a lounge to facilitate casual IETF attendee interactions. This lounge can be the hotel bar or casual restaurant.”

l. “Travel to the region is acceptable based on cost, time and burden…” I suggest, for clarify, that this criteria be reworded as follows: “Travel to the venue is acceptable based on cost, time and burden for participants traveling from multiple regions, balanced among regions over multiple years.”

m. “Overflow Hotels can be placed under contract…” I suggest this be re-written to eliminate the reference to rates, as rates are covered in other criteria: “Overflow Hotels can be contracted and are within convenient travel time of the Facility."
Level of requirement - As you will see when you look at the attached spreadsheet, the current document identifies almost all the criteria as mandatory. I believe we need to re-examine the classifications. If a criteria has any room to “bend”, either for the current meeting or in combination with future meetings, I believe it must be listed as “desired”. I understand that this creates some challenges because some criteria may be only “desired” as they relate to one meeting but are “mandatory” as they relate to a year or more of meetings. Balancing these criteria, as has been stated over and over again, remains the challenge of the IAOC.
Process - is it appropriate and necessary to include the process in the criteria document?

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your comments.

ID-VenueSelection-AsChart-10Feb2017.xlsx

elear / mtgvenue

Align mandatories with values #18