Subject: Westin Bayshore throwing us out

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:47:13 +0200

The Westin Bayshore just called me to tell me that they are undergoing renovations,
and so unfortunately they are kicking me out of the room that I had reserved in early September.
 
They offered to put me up in the Renaissance 5 blocks away,
but, when asked, told me that the night time temperatures are close to,
or below freezing.
 
I am sure that many of you consider zero Celsius a reasonable temperature,
but I don't. 
 
The hotel would not tell me how many people were being relocated
in this fashion, but apparently there are many.
 
I made travel plans based on a confirmation from the hotel that 
the IETF selected as venue, and less than a week before arrival
the hotel throws me out with no recourse.
 
I then asked the hotel if they were going to provide a shuttle service,
and they said that they would have to consider it.
 
I think that the IETF should insist on this as minimal compensation
for those who are being downgraded in this fashion. 

Y(J)S
 
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:06:20 -0600

On 11/27/07 at 9:47 PM +0200, Yaakov Stein wrote:

>They offered to put me up in the Renaissance 5 blocks away...

Same here.

>I then asked the hotel if they were going to provide a shuttle 
>service, and they said that they would have to consider it.

They said to me that there would be.

Ray, I think you need to comment on this. Part of the secretariat 
booking hotels is to avoid nonsense like this. Why are they not 
kicking out other guests instead of us?

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:02:14 -0800

++;

On Nov 27, 2007, at 11:47 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote:

> service,

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:15:46 -0800

At Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:47:13 +0200,
Yaakov Stein wrote:
> The Westin Bayshore just called me to tell me that they are
> undergoing renovations, and so unfortunately they are kicking me out
> of the room that I had reserved in early September.

That's uh, not good.

This actually raises another issue as well: in Chicago a number
of sessions were badly disrupted by renovation noise. It's 
probably worth acting now to ensure that that isn't a risk
in YVR.

-Ekr

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:33:05 -0800

> kicking out other guests instead of us?

Actually, I'm interested in a more basic thing. We usually put a  
large load on a hotel. Why don't our contracts insist that the hotel  
not be undergoing significant renovation during the meeting. We been  
at several hotels that are doing renovation during IETF and I don't  
think it was ever without problems.

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:40:38 -0800

Cullen Jennings wrote:
> Actually, I'm interested in a more basic thing. We usually put a large
> load on a hotel. Why don't our contracts insist that the hotel not be
> undergoing significant renovation during the meeting. We been at several
> hotels that are doing renovation during IETF and I don't think it was
> ever without problems.

Here's the punchline (disclaimer I don't know anything about this
particular hotel contract)...

You get a discount if you're willing to be inconvenienced...

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:53:59 -0500

Preliminary information is that there will shuttle service between the 
Renaissance, Marriott and Westin.  Extent of impact on rooms about 50.  
I am told we are the only guests at the Westin.  I will report back with 
additional info.

Ray
IAD

Pete Resnick wrote:

>> undergoing renovations,

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:08:55 -0800

Fair enough, and I realize that I am not privy to how the  
negotiations go and how much of a discount one gets. I don't want to  
know about how the contracts negotiation happens but I do of course  
want to have a productive IETF meeting with as few late surprises as  
possible.

On Nov 27, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

> large

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:34:39 -0800

On Nov 27, 2007, at 3:08 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> negotiations go and how much of a discount one gets. I don't want  
> to know about how the contracts negotiation happens but I do of  
> course want to have a productive IETF meeting with as few late  
> surprises as possible.

For the record, Ray was aware of this renovation, and tells us that  
there will be renovation ongoing in Philadelphia as well. Post  
Chicago, he has been doing some things to put teeth into the penalty  
parts of the contract, but given that it is already signed I'm not  
sure the teeth will be sharp enough. It's something we/he will be on  
top of next week, though.

That said, Ray wanted 600 rooms in our guarantee at the Westin  
(standard practice), and per a note dated 25 September told us that  
of 425 available rooms, 90 would be unavailable due to renovation. He  
is talking with the hotel now to figure out what happened - either  
they overbooked and said "omygosh those IETFers are serious" (very  
possible - hotels overbook a lot because people change their plans a  
lot) or the 90 became 140. Either way, we (the IAOC) aren't all that  
pleased either.

---

From: "YAO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:45:16 +0800

+1
support.

if so, shuttle should be provided.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Yaakov Stein 
  To: [email-masked] 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:47 AM
  Subject: Westin Bayshore throwing us out

  Y(J)S

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Nov 2007 02:52:19 -0000

>They offered to put me up in the Renaissance 5 blocks away,

The ICANN meeting a couple of years ago was at the Bayshore, and I
stayed at the Renaissance because the Bayshore was full.  When we were
there, the weather was unseasonably severe, with temperatures plunging
below 0 C and snow blown into drifts as much as 1 or 2 cm deep.* The
locals were all moaning and groaning about it.

I agree that bumping people at the last minute is really tacky,
although probably out of their control if a contractor tore up the
rooms they were planning to rent you and hasn't finished.  But even if
there's a shuttle, you'll walk because it's much faster than waiting
around for the bus and it's a nice walk along the Coal Harbour
waterfront.

Dining suggestions: there's a very elegant looking place called Lift
on the seawall in front of the Bayshore; skip it other than perhaps
for a drink, overpriced food and dreadful service.  Cardero's, a large
noisy place in the marina you pass between the two hotels was better
than you'd expect.

R's,
John

* - on closer inspection it was mostly road salt, of which they used a
vast amount.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:52:32 -0800

Cullen Jennings wrote:
>      We been at several

Humans do not process negatives all that well -- and that's a cognitive issue, 
not just emotional -- particularly when doubled.

Besides, it's always good to state things positively.

In other words:

    It has always been with problems.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:57:06 -0800

Fred Baker wrote:
> there will be renovation ongoing in Philadelphia as well. 

Since a purpose of the long-term contract was stability, this is proving to be 
a rather counter-productive pattern.

As for construction noise, it is certainly true that IETF working group 
sessions often are not as productive as we would like, but really, we don't 
need help from the hotel to make sure that's the outcome...

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:57:06 -0800

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Yangwoo Ko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:18:24 +0900

Well, I don't think that shuttle bus is an enough compromise. It is not 
flexible in scheduling and does not work late night.

YAO wrote:
>     *From:* Yaakov Stein <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     *To:* [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:47 AM
>     *Subject:* Westin Bayshore throwing us out
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:13:22 -0800

> flexible in scheduling and does not work late night.

It occurs to me that a competent hotel normally comps the cost of the 
alternate room, if you arrive with a reservation and they fail to satisfy it.

And that does not count the added inconvenience of having to commute to the 
conference hotel.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:39:09 -0500

--On Tuesday, 27 November, 2007 17:53 -0500 Ray Pelletier
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Preliminary information is that there will shuttle service
> between the Renaissance, Marriott and Westin.  Extent of
> impact on rooms about 50.  I am told we are the only guests at
> the Westin.  I will report back with additional info.

Ray,

Given Fred Baker's and Dave Crocker's comments, what I'm about
to say may be unnecessary, but maybe it is worth saying anyway.

I suspect that we are getting attractive offers from otherwise
very expensive hotels precisely because they are renovating and
many groups have learned to not touch a hotel that is under
construction.  While some facilities are more gracious about
trying to handle the problems than others and mass bumpings are
new to me, we've had noise, dust, an absence of hot water, and
other sources of disruption... rarely a really good experience
when we are sharing a hotel with a major construction project.

While I don't know if it has ever happened with the IETF, I've
certainly dealt with facilities which, in meeting disruption
situations, have taken an attitude of "well, we told you the
circumstances and you accepted a great rate as a consequence,
why do you think you are entitled to anything else".   Of
course, that doesn't help the people who are bumped: while you
may have known about the renovations, I don't recall any
warnings on the IETF announcement of the hotel that said "if you
decide to stay in the conference hotel, be aware that they are
renovating, which may subject you to the usual renovation
disruptions".  We also were not warned about the Palmer House,
and the comment in Fred's note about Philly came as a surprise
to me at least.

While I approve of aggressive penalty clauses, we need to keep
in mind that, if something is disruptive enough to reduce our
ability to get work done, the total costs to us are related to
the time and salary costs of everyone who is thus inconvenienced
and who has to find another way and more time to get the work
done.  Those costs can easily exceed the total that the hotel
expected to collect under the contract, so a percentage price
reduction penalty (or the equivalent) is actually more of a
gesture than something that helps us recover our costs.

It seems to me that we need to avoid doing this in the future,
even if that means an immediate review of facility decisions
about IETF 71.   You presumably could not modify or cancel that
contract based on the misbehavior of the Westin Bayshore, but
there might be grounds on the basis of the disruptions and noise
in Chicago.

    john

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:57:52 -0800

John C Klensin wrote:
>   You presumably could not modify or cancel that

Disrupted meetings and dislocated participants for two meetings.

Given that the pattern involves a single chain and given that it clearly is a 
pattern, I believe you are quite right that we have a strong basis requiring a 
change in any existing hotel arrangements for future meetings.

It's one thing to say that there is renovation. It is quite another to say 
that the productivity of the week is affected. There is a difference between 
ugly or irritating, versus disruptive.  The latter can't possibly be acceptable.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:59:14 -0800

Dave Crocker wrote:
> Given that the pattern involves a single chain 

oops.

didn't connect with the fact that the Westin isn't part of Hilton.

no wonder they don't mind screwing us...

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:03:15 -0800 (PST)

And neither is the Marriott in Philadelphia.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:49:50 -0800

The problems in Chicago were not just caused by the renovations, it was the discourteous and pig headed attitude of the management to them.
 
On two days they attempted to close the main throughfare from the third floor to the lobby so that they could seat a private party of four for lunch. I pointed out to the management that this was exceptionally inconvenient and that I didn't think that people would be very willing to tolerate this a second day running. 
 
The point is though that a competent management would have realized that it is simply not acceptable to inconvenience 500 people by catering a party in a corridor.
 
Perhaps a word to the Vancouver hotel management might pre-empt similar behavior.

________________________________

From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tue 27/11/2007 5:15 PM
To: Yaakov Stein
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out

That's uh, not good.

-Ekr

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:05:43 -0500

> And neither is the Marriott in Philadelphia.

It's still Hilton's fault.  Gotta be.

Otherwise, the only common factor is Ray and the rest of IETF's administrative 
management...

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:26:46 -0500

On Nov 28, 2007, at 11:05 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> the only common factor is Ray and the rest of IETF's administrative  
> management...

well, it's gotta be the IAOC's fault then. Tell you what, you can cut  
my IAOC salary in half as a penalty.

Otherwise, we would just have to decide that maybe we get good deals  
from hotels under renovation, and decide how badly cutting the cost  
of attendance is to us. The IAOC is looking at the coming budget, and  
about to discuss it with the ISOC Board. We plan to take a serious  
look at how to reduce it during the coming year, such as looking at  
IP-based telephone or conferencing services for ourselves, the IESG,  
and the IAB (not a huge budget chunk, but not zero either), and  
asking what else can be cut. That is in part what Ray has been doing  
in getting hotel contracts two years out, and in making a deal with  
the Hilton company about repeat business at Hiltons. But maybe we're  
willing to pay extra for "no construction".

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:45:19 -0500

Fred Baker wrote:
> well, it's gotta be the IAOC's fault then. Tell you what, you can cut my 
> IAOC salary in half as a penalty.

Nah.  You deserve every penny you get.  In fact, let's double your salary, for 
taking all this crap from the peanut gallery.

>  The IAOC is looking at the coming budget, and about 
> to discuss it with the ISOC Board.
...
>   That is in part what Ray has been doing in getting hotel 
> contracts two years out, and in making a deal with the Hilton company 
> about repeat business at Hiltons. But maybe we're willing to pay extra 
> for "no construction".

Getting reduced rates has always been a goal and the benefits of signing early 
were discussed perhaps 15 years ago.  So we certainly don't want to reverse 
any of that fine, recent improvement.

Your last sentence is interesting, however, in the idea that we would have to 
pay extra in order to ensure that the hotel does not make it impossible for us 
to do our work.  While that wasn't your wording, I think it is a realistic 
implication.

I keep thinking that folks who rent space are renting the right to use it, and 
that a landlord who makes the space unusable is at fault.  One does not need 
to pay extra for the right; the rent already is the payment.  And I think the 
IETF meeting situation is comparable to renting space, albeit with a more 
interesting payment model.

We still seem to be constantly wandering into hotels for the first time, and 
somehow it's hard to believe that that doesn't cost the IETF a premium, if 
only in staff time learning the new place, especially for the net ops folk.  I 
even wonder whether repeating among a small set of venues would not also lead 
to some relationship building between the different staffs, thereby making 
everything go a lot more smoothly?

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Bill Strahm <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:49:40 -0800

Yeah - but who wants to go to Minneapolis one more time

/duck&cover
Bill
Dave Crocker wrote:
> Nah.  You deserve every penny you get.  In fact, let's double your 
> salary, for taking all this crap from the peanut gallery.
> 
> 
>>  The IAOC is looking at the coming budget, and about to discuss it 
>> with the ISOC Board.
> ...
>>   That is in part what Ray has been doing in getting hotel contracts 
>> two years out, and in making a deal with the Hilton company about 
>> repeat business at Hiltons. But maybe we're willing to pay extra for 
>> "no construction".
> 
> Getting reduced rates has always been a goal and the benefits of signing 
> early were discussed perhaps 15 years ago.  So we certainly don't want 
> to reverse any of that fine, recent improvement.
> 
> Your last sentence is interesting, however, in the idea that we would 
> have to pay extra in order to ensure that the hotel does not make it 
> impossible for us to do our work.  While that wasn't your wording, I 
> think it is a realistic implication.
> 
> I keep thinking that folks who rent space are renting the right to use 
> it, and that a landlord who makes the space unusable is at fault.  One 
> does not need to pay extra for the right; the rent already is the 
> payment.  And I think the IETF meeting situation is comparable to 
> renting space, albeit with a more interesting payment model.
> 
> We still seem to be constantly wandering into hotels for the first time, 
> and somehow it's hard to believe that that doesn't cost the IETF a 
> premium, if only in staff time learning the new place, especially for 
> the net ops folk.  I even wonder whether repeating among a small set of 
> venues would not also lead to some relationship building between the 
> different staffs, thereby making everything go a lot more smoothly?
> 
> d/
>

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:12:16 -0500

Changing the subject line due to topic drift.

On Nov 28, 2007, at 11:45 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> We still seem to be constantly wandering into hotels for the first  
> time, and somehow it's hard to believe that that doesn't cost the  
> IETF a premium, if only in staff time learning the new place,  
> especially for the net ops folk.  I even wonder whether repeating  
> among a small set of venues would not also lead to some  
> relationship building between the different staffs, thereby making  

Well, that at least in part is what has led us to Minneapolis every  
two years or so, and to do a repeat at San Diego. It has historically  
been difficult, as we have wanted hosts to help us with certain  
costs, and they don't want to sign up every other year, and our  
practice of not signing up a long time in advance has also impeded  
that - they're often busy on the dates we pick. Pushing contracts  
further out should help with the latter.

One question I would ask the peanut gallery is: if we were to pick a  
small set of venues to return to, which would we pick? The ones I  
might think of would include our recent venues in Paris and Prague,  
the Minneapolis Hilton, the facility we were at in Dallas last year  
(although restaurants weren't very convenient), the conference center  
and hotels we used in Yokohama, and maybe a few others. Which venues  
seemed to "work" from various folks' perspectives? Which really didn't?

On this, if folks send me the response privately, I will summarize to  
the list. I really am interested in the response, but we probably  
don't need a DOS attack on all of our mail servers.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:38:51 -0500

--On Wednesday, 28 November, 2007 23:45 -0500 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>... 
> Your last sentence is interesting, however, in the idea that
> we would have to pay extra in order to ensure that the hotel
> does not make it impossible for us to do our work.  While that
> wasn't your wording, I think it is a realistic implication.
>...

Dave,

It is just a guess, but I think something else is going on, and
it was that, rather than "pay extra to get acceptable
accommodations", that was implied in my earlier comments.

As I understand the hotel selection process, we are getting
prices from the hotels for some sort of package.  Those prices
--effectively bids when Ray and the secretariat contact more
than one hotel in the same city or even hotels in different
cities on the same schedule-- are for a time and place, not some
rate that they would give us at any time we asked.

Assuming that the hotels are rational --and few would be in
business for long if they weren't-- there are supply and demand
aspects of those bids, assuming we are quoted a penny under
nominal rack rates.  Were we to consider Phoenix, we would
almost certainly get a better rate in July than in February.  I
assume that we generally do better in Minneapolis in March than
we might do in June.  But a hotel has a special incentive to
offer us (or any other candidate for holding meetings or taking
up a lot of rooms) very low rates (measured in the differential
from their average rack rate or even their standard corporate
rate) when, for some reason or another, they expect a
lower-than-usual occupancy rate, especially from people who are
booking only a short time in advance and who, in today's world
of information availability about facilities, can have access
before booking to information like "under construction, full of
noise and dust".  

To take a not-very-random example for illustration purposes, the
average nominal rack rates at the Parker House are astronomical
and, when the hotel is not disrupted, my impression is that they
usually get them (or their standard corporate rate equivalent).
Our conference rate, while still fairly high compared to what we
would have spent at a nominally less exotic facility, was a huge
discount from those rates.   Assuming that they didn't decide to
lose money on the IETF, my guess as to why we saw those very low
rates at that particular time was precisely because they knew
they would be under construction, that many of their facilities
would be closed, and that the place would be at high risk of
being generally disrupted.   Even the seemingly marginal stuff
figures into this: while I agree with Phillip that it was bad
judgment to try to squeeze a private party into a high-traffic
corridor, if all of their facilities had been available, they
would have had less incentive to do so and, probably, more
alternate circulation paths available.  So I fear that we are
getting some differentially low prices because the hotels know
that their facilities won't be up to their normal standards.
And I think we are finding that it is unwise to take such deals,
even (or especially) if the differential is very large.

FWIW, if the enemy is renovations, or even huge and noisy
construction projects across the street or in adjacent
buildings, a model of going repeatedly to the same venues and
building relationships would not help us get more than
better-quality sympathy.  Hotel behavior is not a coin-toss,
even with the same hotel.  If there have been no renovation
projects for several years in a row, that actually increases the
odds that there will be one next time, rather than assuring that
there will not be.

     john

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:39:17 +0200

Fred,

I sent a private list of what worked, but I also wanted to point out out
something:

> Which venues seemed to "work" from various folks' perspectives?

Vancouver might actually be on that list, after construction is finished
and hotel management is thrown into jail ;-) My recollection of the
previous Vancouver meeting was that it worked very well. YMMV of course.

That also applies more generally. The stuff that people complain about,
like construction noise in Chicago or smoke in Prague -- we have to talk
about what the likelihood of these things happening again on a repeat
visit is. I'm 100% certain that if went back to Prague to the same
hotel, they would be smoke free from day 1. And construction, presumably
it does not last forever. A hotel that has not had construction trouble
when we visited them might have construction next time. And one that did
have it might be finished next time.

So I'd focus more on the general layout of facilities (hotel, meeting
rooms, restaurants), airline connections and ease of entrance, local
IETF population potential, and so on. And frankly, I'm willing to be
inconvenienced a bit if the sponsor wants to hold it at a specific
location. Financing the meetings is important, too.

Jari

---

From: Norbert Bollow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:16:33 +0100 (CET)

> odds that there will be one next time, rather than assuring that

The point is that if IETF meetings are potentially repeat business
for a hotel, that gives the hotel an otherwise-absent strong
incentive to do such a good job that we'll want to hold another
IETF meeting there.  From the hotel's perspective, making sure that
we don't get inconvenienced by renovations or other avoidable
disruptions would be one aspect of that.

Greetings,
Norbert.

-- 
Norbert Bollow <[email-masked]>                      http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG    http://SIUG.ch

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:00:15 -0500

--On Thursday, 29 November, 2007 11:16 +0100 Norbert Bollow
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> The point is that if IETF meetings are potentially repeat
> business for a hotel, that gives the hotel an otherwise-absent
> strong incentive to do such a good job that we'll want to hold
> another IETF meeting there.  From the hotel's perspective,
> making sure that we don't get inconvenienced by renovations or
> other avoidable disruptions would be one aspect of that.

But, Norbert, we are _not_ potentially repeat business for some
of the hotels we have been in if they are charging anything
close to their _normal_ conference (not rack or corporate
rates).  At least I hope they aren't, because I hope we never
see an IETF meeting held at a hotel with room rates in the IETF
block well over the USD 300 or EUR 300 range.

And by the way, to review something that has been said in
earlier versions of this discussion, even when we get an
excellent room rate at a super-premium hotel, it may not
necessarily be a good deal because eating or drinking at such a
hotel tends to be at their normal super-premium rate.

    john

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:42:53 -0500

John C Klensin wrote:
>     But a hotel has a special incentive to

John,

Actually I believe I did understand the original point.  I was attempting to 
counter it, by pointing out that any renter, at any rate, has reasonable 
expectations that a facility will be usable.  When a hotel makes choices that 
would render the facility unusuable for us, they have violated the core of the 
agreement, no matter the nature of the problem that renders the facility 
unusable.

I do not see the mere fact of any renovations as making a place unusable. 
However, failure to honor reservations, running jackhammers next to meeting 
rooms, and the like, do.

So, again, I think there is a big difference between things that alter degrees 
of "convenience" or, perhaps, environmental aesthetics, versus things that 
make the facility unusable.

I see this is a simple issue that is not very subtle.   If a hotel cannot 
guarantee reasonable usability, then no rate is low enough.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:04:38 -0500

--On Thursday, 29 November, 2007 08:42 -0500 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> I do not see the mere fact of any renovations as making a
> place unusable. However, failure to honor reservations,
> running jackhammers next to meeting rooms, and the like, do.
> 
> So, again, I think there is a big difference between things
> that alter degrees of "convenience" or, perhaps, environmental
> aesthetics, versus things that make the facility unusable.
> 
> I see this is a simple issue that is not very subtle.   If a
> hotel cannot guarantee reasonable usability, then no rate is
> low enough.

In a backwards sort of way, I think we agree... we are just
looking at this from different perspectives.  If a hotel offers
us a cheap rate but doesn't bother to tell us about the
jackhammers, even if we ask, then there is some very bad
behavior going on.   And, if they offer us a sufficiently cheap
rate relative to their norms, I believe we should be questioning
the deal very carefully.

If a hotel says "well, we are remodeling, but we are sure it
won't inconvenience you in any way, and here is this super-cheap
rate",  I think we need to view the rate with great suspicion
and treat the promise the way we treat commitments from the
average snake-oil salesman, especially because we know from
experience that on-site hotel staff (even ones we know well)
often have little control over construction contractors who have
their own supervisors, contracts, deadlines, etc.

Where we may differ is that I think we have enough experience at
this point to know that, if there is going to be significant
construction/ renovation going on, guarantees of reasonable
usability are meaningless in practice and your "no rate is low
enough" principle applies.  If they make a guarantee and then
can't keep it after we arrive, or even behave in particularly
egregious ways (of which canceling reservations would certainly
be an instance), all we can do then is talk about penalties.
And, while penalties may help us feel good, may help the budget,
and the meeting fees a year out, they don't do a thing to help
us recover lost productivity or lost time.

So I am suggesting that, unless as part of the deal, Ray and the
IAOC are able to actually get the construction plans, form their
own opinions about the likelihood of disruption, and, to the
extent needed, and verify and get commitments from the
construction firm about non-interference, it is time we start
considering "doing some renovations" to be a hard negative on a
particular facility, regardless of what rates they are offering
us.   And part of that is that, if a hotel guarantees us "no
renovation work", the penalties for breaking _that_ guarantee
should be painful and set in whether we are actually disrupted
or not, just to make sure it is clear that behavior is
unacceptable and non-negotiable.

    john

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:56:32 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Actually, I'm interested in a more basic thing. We usually 
> put a large load on a hotel. Why don't our contracts insist 
> that the hotel not be undergoing significant renovation 
> during the meeting. 

One of the problems is that the venue agreements are made pretty far in
advance, and hotels make renovation decisons on shorter timeframes.  So
you may make a venue selection 1 1/2 years before a meeting, and find
out 1 year before the meeting of a renovation.  

Jason

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:00:04 -0500

> For the record, Ray was aware of this renovation, and tells 
> us that there will be renovation ongoing in Philadelphia as 
> well. 

Ray can comment more, but the renovation in Philly for IETF 71
(discovered after the venue decision I believe) is of some of the common
areas in the bar and does not involve renovations to the guest rooms.  I
will also note that in Philadelphia, there are a plethora of hotels to
choose from within a block or two walk from the venue as well (in
addition to good subway systems, etc.).

Jason

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:25:50 -0500

> From: Fred Baker [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> One question I would ask the peanut gallery is: if we were to 
> pick a small set of venues to return to, which would we pick? 
> The ones I might think of would include our recent venues in 
> Paris and Prague, the Minneapolis Hilton, the facility we 
> were at in Dallas last year (although restaurants weren't 
> very convenient)

I would actually vote strongly against venues such as the Dallas venue.
Given that we have over 1,000 people coming into each venue, it seems
odd to expect everyone to rent cars and otherwise go somewhere that is
relatively remote from other services.  

IMHO, ideal venues are in city centers, where people can walk from the
venue to a wide variety of other hotels and restaurants, and where
public transportation is available to connect between airports and
regional rail systems and to other parts of the venue's city.  This
tends to decrease the travel costs and hassles for attendees, among
other benefits.

Jason

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:10:33 -0600

On 11/29/07 2:00 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
> ...[T]he renovation in Philly for IETF 71 (discovered after the venue decision I believe) is of... the bar.

Well, there goes any hope of getting anything useful done in Philly. :)

/a

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:19:38 -0500

They will have a special bar area setup for attendees.  There are also
several other bars inside the hotel building (including a sports bar)
and probably 10 - 15 bars within a 1 to 2 block radius.  I believe the
liquid consumption needs of attendees will be easily accomodated.  :-)

We'll be posting at http://ietf71.comcast.net a guide to all of the
local bars and the distances from the hotel lobby in the coming weeks
and months before IETF 71.  

Jason 

> From: Adam Roach [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:11 PM
> To: Livingood, Jason
> Cc: Fred Baker; Cullen Jennings; Pete Resnick; [email-masked]
> > ...[T]he renovation in Philly for IETF 71 (discovered after 
> the venue decision I believe) is of... the bar.
>