Subject: RE: Hotel situation

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 16:39:00 +0000

One odd thing is that there are other groups who can't tell you what week they're going to have a meeting any time in the next 6-7 years, but who can seem to get block sizes for a larger percentage of the attendees at meetings this year than the 15-25% we seem to get for IETF meetings anymore.

And this has been a worsening trend.  I've attended most IETF meetings in the last 20 years (I have the t-shirts to prove it) and I can remember when it was still possible to book a room at one of the meeting hotels at the IETF rate at least up to the block cut-off date (as opposed to an hour after the hotel information is made available).

Something changed for IETF hotel bookings about the time of the bubble-burst and most of us don't have any visibility into what that is.  We can speculate, but there seems to be empirical data that supports the idea that it is not an unsolvable problem.

--
E

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 11:52 AM
To: Melinda Shore; IETF Discussion
Subject: RE: Hotel situation

> Why are we continuing to have hotel issues meeting after meeting
> after meeting after meeting?

Because we can't force hotels to give us large allocations.   This was discussed at length at the last plenary.   Getting venues that do everything we want is hard.

That said, I think you'd make a great candidate for the IAOC next time if you feel like trying to disprove this point!   :)

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:20:41 -0600

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Eric Gray <[email-masked]> wrote:

> One odd thing is that there are other groups who can't tell you what week
> they're going to have a meeting any time in the next 6-7 years, but who can
> seem to get block sizes for a larger percentage of the attendees at
> meetings this year than the 15-25% we seem to get for IETF meetings anymore.
>
> And this has been a worsening trend.  I've attended most IETF meetings in
> the last 20 years (I have the t-shirts to prove it) and I can remember when
> it was still possible to book a room at one of the meeting hotels at the
> IETF rate at least up to the block cut-off date (as opposed to an hour
> after the hotel information is made available).

> Something changed for IETF hotel bookings about the time of the
> bubble-burst and most of us don't have any visibility into what that is.
> We can speculate, but there seems to be empirical data that supports the
> idea that it is not an unsolvable problem.
>
[MB] My personal thought here is that the change has been due to the fact
that we seem to be going to more exotic venues and also to venues that are
more touristy destinations - e.g., Orlando during one of the busiest weeks
of the year, Europe in the summer, Hawaii in November, etc.  I realize that
it's a minority that prefers Minneapolis, but I'd like to see the data in
terms of length and degree of participation and contribution to IETF that
goes along with the preferences for various destinations and it would also
be nice to see how many people that prefer more popular tourist
destinations travel with companions that would have no interest whatsoever
to spend time in Minneapolis in the winter.   I understand a bit that the
popular touristy destinations attract more paying participants but I
question whether they attract more long term contributors.  I do have to
say that I like the fact that the meeting rooms aren't nearly as crowded
when we meet at touristy locations.
[/MB]

> Because we can't force hotels to give us large allocations.   This was
> discussed at length at the last plenary.   Getting venues that do
> everything we want is hard.
>
> That said, I think you'd make a great candidate for the IAOC next time if
> you feel like trying to disprove this point!   :)
>
>

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 4 Jan 2016 20:00:21 -0000

In article <[email-masked]> you write:
>One odd thing is that there are other groups who can't tell you what week they're going to have a meeting
>any time in the next 6-7 years, but who can seem to get block sizes for a larger percentage of the
>attendees at meetings this year than the 15-25% we seem to get for IETF meetings anymore.

In this case, it's not the hotel's fault.  They only have 417 rooms
total, and the IETF block has over 300 of them.  The Sheraton where
ICANN met has 742, still not close to enough for the IETF, and those
are the only hotels in B.A. with large meeting spaces.

The number of locations in the world that can provide 1000 reasonably
priced rooms a short walk from a an adequate conference facility is
not enormous.  From all the recent grumbling, it sounds like it might
make sense to direct the IAOC to stick to places that have worked well
in the past, even at the cost of not going everywhere someone might
want to go.

R's,
John

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 22:27:42 +0200

Eric, Mary,

> And this has been a worsening trend.  I've attended most IETF meetings in the last 20 years (I have the t-shirts to prove it) and I can remember when it was still possible to book a room at one of…

I think you are right, and we need to fix that.

> Something changed for IETF hotel bookings about the time of the bubble-burst and most of us don't have any visibility into what that is.  We can speculate, but there seems to be empirical data that…

It is not, I think.

Still, it is a set of tradeoffs. The IETF has a set of requirements, and one needs to balance them all. For instance, bigger room blocks mean some more risk / smaller pool of hotels to choose from / at least theoretically higher price. I readily acknowledge though that we have not succeeded as well as we should have in some recent cases, such as the BA hotel block size combined with the fact that the next hotels were not across the street.

> [MB] My personal thought here is that the change has been due to the fact that we seem to be going to more exotic venues and also to venues that are more touristy destinations - e.g., Orlando during one of the busiest weeks of the year, Europe in the summer, Hawaii in November, etc.

Out of the last fifteen meetings:

Yokohama, Prague, Dallas, Honolulu, Toronto, London, Vancouver, Berlin, Orlando, Atlanta, Vancouver, Paris, Taipei, Quebec, Praque, Beijing

I count only two (Honolulu and Orlando) that were clearly touristy destinations. I’m not sure you should count summer meetings in Europe as touristy, we still plan to meet somewhere during summers - unless of course we go the Adelaides and Buenos Aireses during the northern hemisphere summer :-)

In any case, I think given our participants, it seems fair to have something resembling the 1-1-1* circulation model. We could discuss whether there should be more standardisation of the destinations in those areas. In the last 15 meetings there was two repeats (Prague and Vancouver) where I think we had successful meeting environments. We have one announced repeat coming up soon, and the IAOC is working on several more. I expect at least two of those to succeed, maybe more.

I take the guidance to the IAOC should be at least:

- make sure the room blocks are better sufficient than they have been in last meetings
- use successful meeting places multiple times

What else?

> prefers Minneapolis

Personally, I love cold places, particularly during winter. But for the record, Minneapolis has some drawbacks, too, such as flight connections being somewhat limited compared to, say, Vancouver or Dallas or Atlanta. In my experience, at least. The IETF has been to many hotels and cities where we’ve had a great experience from their meeting environment and sufficient availability of rooms.

Jari

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:33:58 -0500

--On Monday, January 04, 2016 12:20 -0600 Mary Barnes
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> [MB] My personal thought here is that the change has been due
> to the fact that we seem to be going to more exotic venues and
> also to venues that are more touristy destinations - e.g.,
> Orlando during one of the busiest weeks of the year, Europe in
> the summer, Hawaii in November, etc.  I realize that it's a
> minority that prefers Minneapolis, but I'd like to see the
> data in terms of length and degree of participation and
> contribution to IETF that goes along with the preferences for
> various destinations and it would also be nice to see how many
> people that prefer more popular tourist destinations travel
> with companions that would have no interest whatsoever to
> spend time in Minneapolis in the winter.   I understand a bit
> that the popular touristy destinations attract more paying
> participants but I question whether they attract more long
> term contributors. 
>...

Mary,

I share your concern, but three observations to add to your note:

(1) While it is clear that people who favor going back to
Minneapolis are in the minority of the Meetings Committee (at
least as they and the IAOC count votes), it is much less clear
that such people are in the minority of active participants in
the IETF.

(2) The data your note requests have been requested several
times.  I don't know whether they are really hard to collect, or
hard to report on, but it is not a subject on which the IAOC has
chosen to be forthcoming.  If the community considers this
important, it needs to make it clear to those who appoint IAOC
members (the IESG, IAB, and Nomcom at different intervals, but
including Nomcom-appointed people who serve ex-officio on the
IAB) that it _is_ important, important enough that people who
won't promise the community that they will push for data
reporting along those lines should not be appointed.

(3) Finally, at least based on experience trying to reserve
hotels for other bodies, at least two additional things are
working against us that were not, e.g., pre-crash.   One is
that, often, trying to work three (or nine) years in advance and
get contracts in place may work against us -- the hotels, like
the airlines under somewhat-similar circumstances with
advanced-purchase fares, are naturally inclined to hold some
rooms back in the hope of later selling them at a higher rate.
Within limits and all other things being equal, the less in
advance one tries to get them to commit, the better a sense they
have about what they are going to be able to market to others at
a higher rate and the more rooms (and at better prices) we are
likely to be able to negotiate.    Second, my impression is that
the number of non-plenary, non-WG, meeting rooms we "need" to
reserve has gone up very significantly.  That puts additional
constraints on the number of hotels that can accommodate us (or
are willing to) and hence, in all likelihood, what we can
negotiate (if only because the hotels perfectly well know that
our options are limited).  Whether we need all of those spaces
or not, it is fairly clear to me that the community has not been
asked what it would be willing to sacrifice some of them in
order to get better deals, larger blocks, etc., and the IAOC and
Meetings Committee have certainly not asked (one has to assume
either because they think the community is incapable of
understanding the issues or that they know what answers they
would get and wouldn't like them).

best,
   john

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:15:41 +0000

> that such people are in the minority of active participants in
Minneapolis is really a metaphor for functional, works well for most
people, easy to get flights and hotels, flight times not too bad, not 
regarded
as a holiday trip at work, everyone is there to work.

It does not have to be Minneapolis, but the utilitarian properties above,
are in my view far more relevant than the IETF World Tour model we
seem to have in place.

- Stewart

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 13:53:51 +0200

> people, easy to get flights and hotels, flight times not too bad, not regarded

Yes.

And I think we have several conceptual Minneapolises :-) some of which
we are returning to.

> are in my view far more relevant than the IETF World Tour model we

Our main criteria is 1-1-1*, and I agree that we can get some further
efficiencies by focusing more on repeat locations with good experience.
But we will still need to meet in different parts of the world. Granted,
two out of the last 15 meetings were in touristy locations - that’s still
probably less than, say corresponding fraction in some other
organisations such as the IEEE.  In any case, for me the main
criteria is ease of travel (flights), availability of a range of hotels
(and the hotel block in main ones), and ability to put the IETF
network in and other practical issues.

Jari

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:39:28 +0000

I remain disappointed that the concepts of Minneapolis, and MPLS, have not been extended to calling them 'mipples.'

Are we going to Mipples? again?
Is our network infrastructure mipples-enabled?
Should we implement a bogop mipples vippen?

L.

sometimes a metaphor is just a metaphor.
________________________________________
From: ietf <[email-masked]> on behalf of Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 January 2016 10:53:51 PM
To: Stewart Bryant
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Hotel situation

Yes.

Jari

---

From: Christian Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 07:44:39 -0500

> when we meet at touristy locations.

I've often wondered if when polls were taken if any weight was given to
active or long term contributors. If the polls were restricted to such a
sub-group would Minneapolis still be in the Minority?

Chris.

P.S. and I'm fine with the literal Minneapolis, not just the figurative
one that others have mentioned.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 08:28:21 -0500

> Minneapolis is really a metaphor for functional, works well
> for most people, easy to get flights and hotels, flight times
> not too bad, not regarded as a holiday trip at work, everyone
> is there to work.

> It does not have to be Minneapolis, but the utilitarian
> properties above, are in my view far more relevant than the
> IETF World Tour model we seem to have in place.

Agreed.  But Minneapolis is, in one way, not just a metaphor.
Especially as we start discussing "go back to the same places
every year" again, Minneapolis was a place we went to multiple
times and found successful (for the reasons you give).  Then we
stopped.  There has never been an explanation to the community
as to why we stopped, but there have been rumors that someone
had a bad experience (whether with the weather, the hotel, or
something else), vowed that we would never go back there, and
apparently was in a position to implement that vow.  Rumors like
that are unfortunate, but can be seen as symptoms of the
failures of the Meeting Committee and IAOC to communicate
clearly and openly with the community about these issues and
decisions.

     john

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 06:08:27 -0800

On 1/5/2016 4:44 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
> active or long term contributors.

Thanks for raising this.  The surveys should, indeed, be tailored to 
produce more useful information, with more emphasis on pragmatics.

The IETF meeting has a core of regular participants.  They dominate the 
surveys we currently do.  They are well-funded and well-traveled.

To be serious about efforts an inclusiveness, venues should be easy, 
quick and cheap to get to and cheap to stay in.

The surveys should primarily target folk who are /not/ guaranteed to 
attend but who are nonetheless desirable attendees.

This requires better sampling -- don't just query current attendees -- 
and better questions -- don't just ask about general preferences for a 
particular city.

Our current sampling method produces a tourism focus.

Jari's comment:

> On 1/4/2016 12:27 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> Yokohama, Prague, Dallas, Honolulu, Toronto, London, Vancouver,
>> Berlin, Orlando, Atlanta, Vancouver, Paris, Taipei, Quebec,
>> Praque, Beijing
>>
>> I count only two (Honolulu and Orlando) that were clearly touristy
>> destinations.

demonstrates some of the problem we have in considering cities 
carefully.  The reality is that most of those venues are highly popular 
tourist destination, especially in summer.

Four of them are listed as among the top 20 in one survey:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2014/07/31/the-20-most-popular-cities-in-the-world-to-visit-in-2014/

Three of them, in another:

      http://www.tripadvisor.com/TravelersChoice-Destinations

When we travel to such places during the height of their tourism season, 
we encounter bigger crowds and higher prices, both in transit and in 
staying.

By mostly querying people who are well-funded, well-traveled, regular 
attendees, we invite the influence on 'pleasure' to their travel 
preferences.  That is, tourism.  They are going to attend no matter 
what, so their expectation of actually enjoying the venue is pretty much 
the only distinguishing characteristic influencing their responses, 
especially since we do not provide additional, distinguishing 
information in the query.

Instead, we should query potential /additional/ or /infrequent/ 
attendees who are showing up on discussion lists already and who are not 
well-funded.

The form of the surveys also should be different.  Simply asking for 
basic preferences about specific cities elicits a response about the 
appeal of the city, not about the pragmatics of going there.

So the surveys should begin by priming the context by asking general, 
policy-related questions about venue factors, such as travel price and 
travel time and venue costs (including food) and venue convenience 
(isolated resort versus resource-rich urban environments).

After that it should ask about specific locations but should include 
information about each place's costs and convenience.

And it should not just ask about preference.  It should ask about 
attendance likelihood.  That is, cast the question so as to elicit a 
mild form of commitment.  People answer such questions differently than 
open-ended preferences questions.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 14:17:23 +0000

> On 5 Jan 2016, at 13:28, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> as to why we stopped

It would be interesting to know. It is, or was, a good meeting venue.

I’m guessing attendance is lower, and meeting fees matter more now?

Tim

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 09:35:22 -0500

--On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 14:17 +0000 Tim Chown
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
>> Minneapolis was a place we went to multiple
>> times and found successful (for the reasons you give).  Then
>> we stopped.  There has never been an explanation to the
>> community as to why we stopped
> 
> I'm guessing attendance is lower, and meeting fees matter
> more now?

I note that "pick locations to maximize meeting fee income" was
not on any of the lists of criteria that have been posted in
recent weeks by various IAOC and Meetings Committee members.  I
presume that means it is not an important criterion because, if
it were, the criteria that the community is being told about and
the criteria that are being used are different... and that, to
me, would be a very serious matter.

    john

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 15:00:48 +0000

Ray, I really appreciate this info, I think it goes a long way to explain
the challenges the IAOC and IAD face in meeting our needs for space. I
have a few clarifying questions, inline below.

On 12/18/15, 3:49 PM, "ietf on behalf of Ray Pelletier"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
>
>The following are the objectives desired in the selection of an IETF
>meeting venue:
>
>   1. Advancing standards development
>   2. Facilitating participation by active contributors
>   3. Encouraging new contributors
>   4. Sharing the travel pain; balancing travel time and expense across
>the regions from
>where IETF participants are based.
>
>The is the list of the criteria that is evaluated when selecting a venue.
>This is not in any priority order.

WG] Are these primary objectives and the below criteria published anywhere
(other than our email archive)? The IAOC Venue Selection page has links to
two slide presentations that do not cover this information specifically,
so I believe the answer to be no. I think that it should be present on
that page.
Other questions that should be clearly answered on that page: How are
these criteria defined, updated, rationalized, and by whom? Is there an
objective evaluation method so that we can see how well IAOC feels a given
venue meets those stated criteria?
Perhaps the IAOC should formally review these priorities with the
community periodically (via a survey or meeting discussion) to ensure that
they are optimizing for the right set of variables. Consensus will of
course be rough, but making that method for providing input available to
those not on IAOC provides a very useful method for feedback so that
people feel like their concerns are being heard and the process is more
transparent. Like it or not, that review happens informally every time you
get a bunch of questions when people aren't happy with the venue, hotel
availability, etc. so let's just acknowledge that it's important and plan
accordingly.

>4.  The Guest Rooms at the headquarters hotel must be sufficient
>in number, have an adequate network, or the Hotel will accept
>the IETF network, and within close proximity to venue.

WG] "sufficient in number" needs further definition, including the
internal carving of any block for IETF staff and volunteer leadership. For
example, identifying goals in terms of total number of rooms across all
hotels, rooms in HQ hotel, etc, maybe expressed as a percentage of past
attendance. Since IETF room blocks also tend to have different
rates/classes of room, the desired ratio of standard rooms vs upgraded
rooms (or as others have noted, how that is affected by block reservations
for I* as a percentage of available rooms).

>
>6.  The Cost of guest rooms, meeting space, food and beverage
>must be affordable.

WG] affordable should be clearly defined. I've heard in the past we try to
stick to the US Gov't per diem standards, but I'm not sure if that's a
hard rule or not. Given the problems we've had finding venues in Asia, and
previous discussion that partially blames room rates for this,
understanding what the IAOC considers an unacceptable threshold for room
rates is important, including the above consideration about the types of
rooms and their cost differential. Additionally, when dealing with venues
that are both hotel and conference center, there is always a relationship
between the room block rate and the cost of meeting space, catering, etc
(see examples elsewhere about IEEE offering a registration discount to
those staying in the venue room block and thus subsidizing the cost of
meeting space). While we can't publicly disclose individual contracts, the
intended balance between these costs should be clearly stated, since it
has direct effect on the registration fees vs other costs, and is
something that the community should be able to provide feedback on.

>
>9.  Travel is a consideration, ease of access and number of
>hops.  Travel to the venue should be reasonably acceptable
>based on cost, time, and burden for participants traveling from
>multiple regions.   Also, are there other travel barriers to
>entry, e.g., visas?

WG] Above, you also mention "sharing travel pain" as a primary objective.
Is this a quantitative goal, or a qualitative one i.e. just generally
trying to maintain fairness through 1-1-1? We have good data on where IETF
participants are coming from. Seems that we could estimate the average
cost or time of travel from the top N source locations or regions (e.g.
APAC, AUS/NZ, {Eastern, Central, Western}-{North America, Europe}, SA to
get a sense of how well we're doing over time. I don't want suggest
needless analysis, as I know this takes work, but I do think that it may
help IAOC to put some numerical justification behind our choices,
especially when people cry foul because we're "always making them travel
long/expensive distances to participate" - this is an area where a lot of
assertions are made with largely anecdotal evidence to support them, and
having real numbers helps. This would also provide good justification if
we end up returning to a smaller set of destinations repeatedly if they
can be shown to be a good balance of time and travel cost for the majority
of the IETF participant base.

Thanks,

Wes George

Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I
have no control over it.
-----------

________________________________

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:01:10 -0500

Dave,

While I agree with your conclusions, I think it is important to
look carefully at your data...

--On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 06:08 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I've often wondered if when polls were taken if any weight
>> was given to active or long term contributors.
> 
> Thanks for raising this.  The surveys should, indeed, be
> tailored to produce more useful information, with more
> emphasis on pragmatics.
> 
> The IETF meeting has a core of regular participants.  They
> dominate the surveys we currently do.  They are well-funded
> and well-traveled.

... and probably well-represented by the people on the Meetings
Committee.

> To be serious about efforts an inclusiveness, venues should be
> easy, quick and cheap to get to and cheap to stay in.
> 
> The surveys should primarily target folk who are /not/
> guaranteed to attend but who are nonetheless desirable
> attendees.
> 
> This requires better sampling -- don't just query current
> attendees -- and better questions -- don't just ask about
> general preferences for a particular city.

Yes.  And don't just ask about how well the last meeting went.

>>> Yokohama, Prague, Dallas, Honolulu, Toronto, London,
>>> Vancouver, Berlin, Orlando, Atlanta, Vancouver, Paris,
>>> Taipei, Quebec, Praque, Beijing
>>> 
>>> I count only two (Honolulu and Orlando) that were clearly
>>> touristy destinations.
> 
> carefully.  The reality is that most of those venues are
> highly popular tourist destination, especially in summer.
> 
>  http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2014/07/31/the-20-
> most-popular-cities-in-the-world-to-visit-in-2014/

But that story appears to be ultimately based on a Master Card
analysis [1]that intermixes business and vacation travel (and
other categories, if they exist).  So I don't think one can get
from that list to "popular tourist destinations".

>       http://www.tripadvisor.com/TravelersChoice-Destinations

This appears to be a more tourism-oriented list.  When one
excludes locations (or even countries) with no significant
Internet engineering presence from that list, those three are
actually an uncomfortably high percentage.

One could look at other surveys and other criteria.  By some of
them, the _only_ city on the recent meetings list that is not
aggressively promoted as a tourist destination is Dallas.

> When we travel to such places during the height of their
> tourism season, we encounter bigger crowds and higher prices,
> both in transit and in staying.

Indeed.  And, I would assume, hotels that are reluctant to
allocate large blocks of rooms to us at discounted rates if they
think they can make more money on the per-room basis from
tourists.

That leads to another conclusion: many locations have clear
"low" and "high" seasons.  They can be great meeting locations
in the low seasons because hotels and other facilities are
hungry and more anxious to accommodate (on rates, room blocks,
and more generally) than when they are convinced that most of
their rooms will be filled no matter what they do.  Minneapolis
or Toronto in the dead of winter or Phoenix in July might be
good examples of that -- whether those are tourist destinations
in the high season or not, they almost certainly are not in the
low season.

>...
> Instead, we should query potential /additional/ or
> /infrequent/ attendees who are showing up on discussion lists
> already and who are not well-funded.
> 
> The form of the surveys also should be different.  Simply
> asking for basic preferences about specific cities elicits a
> response about the appeal of the city, not about the
> pragmatics of going there.

Unfortunately, if it is a city that few IETF attendees have
visited before(especially to attend large work-oriented
meetings) information about those pragmatics may be largely
missing and those with information may be hard to distinguish
from guesses by people who think the city would be interesting.

> So the surveys should begin by priming the context by asking
> general, policy-related questions about venue factors, such as
> travel price and travel time and venue costs (including food)
> and venue convenience (isolated resort versus resource-rich
> urban environments).
> 
> After that it should ask about specific locations but should
> include information about each place's costs and convenience.
> 
> And it should not just ask about preference.  It should ask
> about attendance likelihood.  That is, cast the question so as
> to elicit a mild form of commitment.  People answer such
> questions differently than open-ended preferences questions.

That seems right to me.

best,
    john

---

From: Nadeau Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:32:30 -0500

I very much agree.

	—Tom

> On Jan 5, 2016:4:15 AM, at 4:15 AM, Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
>

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 08:19:07 -0800 (PST)

> me, would be a very serious matter.

Speaking as the chair of said committee, no "maximizing meeting fee 
income" is not and (at least in my opinion) should not be the primary 
reason for selecting a venue. There *is* obviously some predictable 
correlation between location and attendance number, for example if we 
have a meeting in San Jose or San Francisco we would expect a larger 
than average number of "locals" to attend because there are many of 
them in that area. But it's not clear that such a peak in numbers 
would benefit the IETF in the long run, in other words, it isn't clear 
that such extra attendees would become regular contributors.

The primary requirement is that we find a venue where we can have a 
successful meeting, and that typically starts with a meeting room 
analysis while taking into account all the other desires of our 
attendee population (hotel, travel, local facilities, etc, etc).

Please understand that this is an optimization excercise with no
perfect solutions unless we are really willing to give up some of
what we consider "nice" and meet in a place that strictly caters
to conventions.

Las Vegas would clearly win, but I have a strong impression that
many of our attendees would object to going there. (It also happens
to be a "tourist destination" for reasons that kind of escapes
me, but that's yet another discussion).

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office:  +1 415-550-9433   
Cell:    +1 415-370-4628   
docomo: (090) 3337-9311
Web: protocoljournal.org  
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Jared Mauch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 11:52:12 -0500

I know for NANOG the Bay Area is a big attendance draw but costs are also much higher compared to other venues. 

Jared Mauch

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:45:57 -0500

All;

Below is data for our upcoming meetings regarding guest room rates,
rooms contracted for on Peak nights and number of rooms total in the
Hotel.

Our target has been to get 600 rooms on peak nights in the so-called
headquarters hotel, and total, with Overflow hotels, to contract 780
rooms on peak night.  We do not attempt to contract rooms for 1,200
attendees.

There are often tradeoffs required in selecting the venue.  We might
be able to get 600 rooms in a hotel but the hotel is remote, not
surrounded by other hotels, restaurants, etc.  It’s not uncommon for
us to check availability for 10 or more venues for a particular
meeting in a particular region to identify ones that are available
and meet the criteria.  See the Venue Selection Criteria below.  
And, no, “pick locations to maximize meeting fee income” is not
among the criteria.  

For Buenos Aires we have contracted with 10 hotels, of which the
last 4 will come online in the next 24 hours or so.  Hotels are
smaller in Buenos Aires.  

Currently we are working on the overflow hotels in Seoul, trying to
get as many rooms at reasonable prices as close to the venue as
possible.  We expect to contract with 3 additional hotels there.  

Ray
IAD

			Price w/o Tax  Peak  Total
Buenos Aires				1230  2923
 Hilton			$209 	300    417
 Sheraton ConvCtr	$179 	140    742
 Holiday Inn		$150 	30      116
 NH City Hotel		$143        190    369
 NH Florida		$120 	85      162
 NH Lancaster		$132 	40	  115
 NH 9th of July	$120 	85	  175
 Sheraton Liberator $179 	70	  200
 InterCon			$200 	150	  309
 Plaza			$131 	140	  318

Berlin					730
 InterCon			$140 	480	  558
 Pullman			$129 	250	  383

Seoul
 Conrad		$197/$214	400	  434
 Overflow	TBD
 Overflow	TBD
 Overflow	TBD

Chicago					800
 Swissotel		$169 	450	  660
 Fairmont			$169 	350	  687

Prague
 Hilton			$149 	600	  791

+++++++++++++++
Venue Selection Objectives & Criteria:

The following are the objectives desired in the selection of an 
IETF meeting venue:

  1. Advancing standards development
  2. Facilitating participation by active contributors
  3. Encouraging new contributors
  4. Sharing the travel pain; balancing travel time and expense 
	across the regions from 	where IETF participants are based.

The is the list of the criteria that is evaluated when selecting a
venue.  This is not in any priority order.

1.  An Optimal Facility for an IETF meeting is held under "One
Roof", that is, qualified meeting space and guest rooms are
available in the same facility.

2.  The Meeting Space must be adequate in size and layout to
accommodate meeting and participant networking where possible.

3.  The Technology must be capable of supporting meeting network
requirements.

4.  The Guest Rooms at the headquarters hotel must be sufficient in
number, have an adequate network, or the Hotel will accept the IETF
network, and within close proximity to venue.

5.  The Venue Surroundings must be surrounded by other hotels,
restaurants and bars, and within walking distance; not isolated

6.  The Cost of guest rooms, meeting space, food and beverage must
be affordable.

7.  The meeting should be Hostable and Sponsorable, that is, the
Meeting is in a location and at a price that it is possible and
probable to find a host and sponsors.  Host costs typically include
the cost of the meeting space, network operation and circuits.

8.  Overflow Hotels are hotels under contract typically within
walking distance of the venue and have a variety of guest room
rates.  They do not include the IETF network, but typically have
free Internet.

9.  Travel is a consideration, ease of access and number of hops. 
Travel to the venue should be reasonably 	acceptable based on
cost, time, and burden for participants traveling from multiple
regions.   Also, are there other travel barriers to entry, e.g.,
visas?

10.  Can the venue and hotels be put under contract?

11.  Risk - Review risks associated with this venue over selected
dates.

12.  Are there safety/health concerns for the participants at this
venue?

13.  Are there health concerns for the participants at this venue?

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Jared Mauch <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: tom p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 10:12:51 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]>
To: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>; "Eric Gray"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "IETF Discussion" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 8:27 PM

Eric, Mary,

> And this has been a worsening trend.  I've attended most IETF meetings
in the last 20 years (I have the t-shirts to prove it) and I can
remember when it was still possible to book a room at one of the meeting
hotels at the IETF rate at least up to the block cut-off date (as
opposed to an hour after the hotel information is made available).

It is not, I think.

Still, it is a set of tradeoffs. The IETF has a set of requirements, and
one needs to balance them all. For instance, bigger room blocks mean
some more risk / smaller pool of hotels to choose from / at least
theoretically higher price. I readily acknowledge though that we have
not succeeded as well as we should have in some recent cases, such as
the BA hotel block size combined with the fact that the next hotels were
not across the street.

> [MB] My personal thought here is that the change has been due to the
fact that we seem to be going to more exotic venues and also to venues
that are more touristy destinations - e.g., Orlando during one of the
busiest weeks of the year, Europe in the summer, Hawaii in November,
etc.

Yokohama, Prague, Dallas, Honolulu, Toronto, London, Vancouver, Berlin,
Orlando, Atlanta, Vancouver, Paris, Taipei, Quebec, Praque, Beijing

I count only two (Honolulu and Orlando) that were clearly touristy
destinations. I’m not sure you should count summer meetings in Europe as
touristy, we still plan to meet somewhere during summers - unless of
course we go the Adelaides and Buenos Aireses during the northern
hemisphere summer :-)

<tp>

Jari,

>From my UK perspective, Paris has long been a major tourist destination
while Beijing now figures prominently and Berlin has its fans.  I
understand that from outside the UK, the Oxford Street shops are a major
draw to London, especially to those in China, Japan and such like so I
think that the touristy list is a little longer.  I would not say we
should avoid such locations - London in March seemed to work well - but
I would see it as a small mark against.  (On the other hand, a plus for
Minnesota is the (remote) chance of seeing the Vikings, so this issue
may be rather subjective:-)

I think that the availabillity of hotel rooms and work rooms should
dominate the choice.

Tom Petch

In any case, I think given our participants, it seems fair to have
something resembling the 1-1-1* circulation model. We could discuss
whether there should be more standardisation of the destinations in
those areas. In the last 15 meetings there was two repeats (Prague and
Vancouver) where I think we had successful meeting environments. We have
one announced repeat coming up soon, and the IAOC is working on several
more. I expect at least two of those to succeed, maybe more.

- make sure the room blocks are better sufficient than they have been in
last meetings
- use successful meeting places multiple times

What else?

> prefers Minneapolis

Personally, I love cold places, particularly during winter. But for the
record, Minneapolis has some drawbacks, too, such as flight connections
being somewhat limited compared to, say, Vancouver or Dallas or Atlanta.
In my experience, at least. The IETF has been to many hotels and cities
where we’ve had a great experience from their meeting environment and
sufficient availability of rooms.

Jari

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:00:49 -0800

Stepping back from this discussion a bit, I think we also have to note that over the years, we (the community) have added a lot of requirements for meeting venues.  These include:

Preference for meeting in the main hotel (aka single roof meeting)
Intercity locations with lots of restaurants, bars, grocery stores, etc., etc. within walking distances
Direct flights from different continents
Ability to take over the hotel room network
Preference for rooms < $200 / night.
Avoid places like Las Vegas and Macau
Etc., etc.

and my recent favorite, ability to get hotel rewards point :-)

These requirements along with our need for many meeting rooms and a large plenary do restrict the number of choices in venues.  This is like a balloon, if you push it from one side, the other side expands.  That is, the more requirements we add, the fewer venues there are that can accommodate our needs.  Something has to give.

We can’t keep adding requirements and then be surprised that are some side effects like we are seeing now.

Bob

p.s. Note, personally I like single roof venues, intercity locations, etc., and agree with should go back to venues that have worked in the past.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 08:02:32 +0900

> Avoid places like Las Vegas and Macau

why?  vegas seems an ok us venue.  maybe tacky, but we're not so high
society ourselves.

and places such as KL / petaling jaya have great facilities, are easy to
reach, are cheap, and make most visas easy.

randy

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 18:09:10 -0500 (EST)

> why?  vegas seems an ok us venue.  maybe tacky, but we're not so high

Often, companies cannot let their people go to "party locations", even
if they know the conference is real and the employees are there doing
work. Corporate policies banning those locations tend to trump that.

We heard the same issue happened for some people regarding Hawaii

Paul

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 18:17:57 -0500

Vegas .. Sure you can negotiate reasonable room rates for a block as large excellent direct connections as our and goodness knows the food is superb.

I’d add barbecue to the list of possible matrix of requirements. That adds Kansas City and Austin TX Memphis and Charlotte NC to the mix and they are not as cold as Minneapolis. 

Germany does actually meet the requirements. Schweinshaxe is one of the glories of German/Austrian civilization. 

Quebec of course for all things Duck.

Actually that should be the first requirement.  “Yes dear ..what are you hungry for?”  

—

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 08:38:32 +0900

> work. Corporate policies banning those locations tend to trump that.

i am not sure i would want to work for a manager who thought vegas was a
leisure destination.  

but i had not considered this aspect.  i consider vegas to be a form of
hell; but it works well for conferences.

i suspect there is a correlation between very large all-in-one hotels
and the perception of a leisure destination.  back to bob's point that
we have placed whole lot of conditions.

randy

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 15:48:39 -0800 (PST)

Some of the largest conventions in the world are held in Las Vegas.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-02/ces-the-world-s-largest-trade-show-is-too-big-for-vegas.html

Back when I worked for Interop we certainly didn't seem to lose 
attendees after moving the show to Vegas, of course I do agree
that it is a special form of hell on earth, but if the requirement
is one roof, cheap hotel rates, and "getting work done," Vegas fits
the bill.

On the topic of tourist destinations, let me just add that Orlando was 
a special case (co-location with IEEE, *they* not we chose the venue),
and in some sense so was Hawaii (resulted from much discussion in the
IESG).

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 01:02:08 +0000 (UTC)

I once spent a week at a conference in Atlantic City.
Which is pretty much Vegas, but lower rent.

Nowhere to eat apart from casino restaurants, because
they'd driven everyone else out of business.

Extremely difficult to get receipts from taxi drivers
to expense. If you weren't there to throw away money,
why were you there?

I took the train from Philadelphia's 30th street station,
which, with its statues of angels, is cathedral-like in
grandeur.

The rise over the horizon of the red TRUMP neon at the
top of the buildings as we approached Atlantic City was
truly hellish in demeanour. Good luck electing that guy.

L.

whose very first ever PhD supervisor got married in Vegas.
which was, in retrospect, one hell of a warning.
Lloyd Wood [email-masked] http://about.me/lloydwood 

----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
To: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Cc: IETF <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, 7 January 2016, 10:38
Subject: Re: Hotel situation

randy

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Jan 2016 02:36:49 -0000

>and in some sense so was Hawaii (resulted from much discussion in the

Hawaii is certainly touristy but it is easy to get to from east Asia
and the South Pacific, should we want to split the pain between North
America and Asia.  Also, pragmatically, the conference facilities were
good and there were a bazillion other hotels and restaurants nearby.
I'd go back to the food trucks on (somewhat misnamed) Beach Walk any
time.

R's,
John

PS: Orlando, on the other hand, ...

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 02:57:41 +0000 (UTC)

> PS: Orlando, on the other hand, ...
it's as if people take a dislike to
the Gaylord Palms for some reason.

http://gaylordalert.com/content/ChristmasVideoGaylordPalms/

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:24:59 -0800

At 10:27 PM +0200 1/4/16, Jari Arkko wrote:

>  Personally, I love cold places, particularly during winter. But for 
> the record, Minneapolis has some drawbacks, too, such as flight 
> connections being somewhat limited compared to, say, Vancouver or 
> Dallas or Atlanta.

I view personal and work travel as two very different things, so I'm 
not looking for IETFs to meet in places I want to visit (I'll go on 
my own).  Personally, I hate going to cold places (I never check bags 
and much prefer flying with lighter/fewer clothing layers), and felt 
that Hawaii was a terrific meeting venue (especially because the 
reception and other events could be held outdoors, and we could talk 
to people without going hoarse from shouting).  I do think the 
Minneapolis, Vancouver, and Dallas venues worked well.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Most people and their lazy, conventional ways of thinking wear
down our childlike thinking powers over time. And we help them.
                               --Marco Marsan, from 'Think Naked'

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:53:53 -0800

At 6:08 AM -0800 1/5/16, Dave Crocker wrote:

>  isolated resort versus resource-rich urban environments

I'm not sure this is such a clear distinction.  I can think of 
several supposedly "resource-rich urban environments" that were 
really urban desserts where nothing was in walking distance.  Some 
"resorts" (e.g., Hawaii) were resource-rich environments.

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
37% of Americans agree that while they would hate being British,
they wouldn't mind having a British accent.

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:10:56 -0800

>  in the high season or not, they almost certainly are not in the

Even shoulder seasons can be a great time to visit, for the same reasons.

Also, contrary to what one might expect, November is not high season 
in Hawaii.  Depending on which guide you trust, November is either 
low season or shoulder season.

Hawaii seasons:

	*	high season: June to August, late December to early January
	*	low season: mid-January to March
	*	shoulder season: mid-March to May, September to November
	(per http://www.smartertravel.com/travel-guides/page.php?id=102383)

And:

----------
Most visitors come to Hawaii when the weather is lousy most 
everywhere else. Thus, the high season-when prices are up and resorts 
are often booked to capacity-is generally from mid-December to March 
or mid-April. The last 2 weeks of December, in particular, are prime 
time for travel to Hawaii. Spring break is also jam-packed with 
families taking advantage of the school holiday. If you're planning a 
trip during peak season, make your hotel and rental car reservations 
as early as possible, expect crowds, and prepare to pay top dollar.

The off season, when the best rates are available and the islands are 
less crowded, is late spring (mid-Apr to early June) and fall (Sept 
to mid-Dec).

If you plan to travel in summer (June-Aug), don't expect to see the 
fantastic bargains of spring and fall-this is prime time for family 
travel. But you'll still find much better deals on packages, airfare, 
and accommodations in summer than in the winter months.
----------
(per http://www.frommers.com/destinations/hawaii/793865)

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Democracy is a beautiful thing, except for that part about letting
just any old yokel vote. --Anonymous, Age 10

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:13:19 -0800

>  me, but that's yet another discussion).

I'd be very upset if we started meeting in perhaps the last remaining 
all-smoking-all-the-time location in the U.S. or Canada.

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.  They came for the trade
unionists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.  Then
they came for Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant.  Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left
to speak up.                                        --Martin Niemoell

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:23:00 -0800

>  they'd driven everyone else out of business.

It's been a long time since I lived near there, but I have vivid 
memories before the casinos of the city being a barren, deserted, 
crime-infested wasteland where no one ventured.  Gambling was 
legalized on the promise of urban renewal and economic revival.  I 
think the promise was never met.

>  which, with its statues of angels, is cathedral-like in

30th Street is a magnificent station, although significant parts of 
it have been sealed off since the '70s.  There used to be a cool 
small train line from Philadelphia to the Jersey Shore: the 
Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line.  It also went to Cape May Court 
House, Cape May, and Wildwood.

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
I have given up reading books.  I find it takes my mind off myself.
    --Oscar Levant

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 9 Jan 2016 05:05:37 -0000

>It's been a long time since I lived near [Atlantic City], but I have vivid 

You are correct.  I went there are few times for the SJCC in the 1970s
and it was a dump.  It's still a dump.

>House, Cape May, and Wildwood.

The train still goes from Philadelphia to Atlantic City 12 times a
day, but it's been a long time since it's gone to Cape May.

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 20:25:13 +0000 (UTC)

blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important;  padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; }  and then there was that time physicists met in Las Vegas and the town told them never to return.

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2015/09/one-winning-move.html

L.

the only winning move is not to bet on -00.

On Saturday, January 9, 2016, 11:14 AM, Randall Gellens <[email-masked]> wrote:

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 20:25:13 +0000 (UTC)

L.

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:32:37 -0800

At 8:25 PM +0000 1/9/16, Lloyd Wood wrote:

>  blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; 
> border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex 
> !important; background-color:white !important; } and then there was 
> that time physicists met in Las Vegas and the town told them never 
> to return.
>
>
>  <>http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2015/09/one-winning-move.html
>
>
>  L.
>
>

Amusing story, although I expect that, were the IETF to try and 
emulate this, the hotel would find it one of their most profitable 
weeks.  Likely the bar tabs alone would fund the entire hotel 
operation, with gambling winnings providing pure gravy.

>  At 8:19 AM -<tel:0800%201/5/16>0800 1/5/16, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
>

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 00:54:08 -0800

Nice old story. I bet the hotels have learned to better classify
clientele and offer appropriate discounts on rooms. If i remember
correctly, when Ciscos conference went to Vegas just a few years back,
the rates at the conference hotel Mandalay Bay where fairly high, but 
the rates at adjacent Luxor where at its usual touristy low (*).

Vegas might still be good for work: If i rank cities based on stuff that
could be more interesting than work, Vegas would rank fairly low for me. 
One of these days i just want to go to CES.

Btw: "Going to CES" seems to be a code word to actually go some place
else. Would be fun to have IETF in the same week in Vegas as Def Con.
Like CES, i only know the german counterpart.  Especially with the influx
of privacy religion into the IETF, there could be some good
cross-polination. Like CES, i only know the german counterpart yet
(CCC in Hamburg was very well made. Alas, last time next yet, highly
recommended).

Cheers
    Toerless

-- 
---
Toerless Eckert, [email-masked]

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 11:58:24 -0500

--On Saturday, January 09, 2016 21:32 -0800 Randall Gellens
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Amusing story, although I expect that, were the IETF to try
> and emulate this, the hotel would find it one of their most
> profitable weeks.  Likely the bar tabs alone would fund the
> entire hotel operation, with gambling winnings providing pure
> gravy.

Having very rarely seen IETF participants, especially a
significant number of participants, drink to or past the level
that would interfere with functioning the following morning, I'd
actually be surprised if, on a per-head basis, we drank
significantly more than the physicists.  

I can't even guess about the gambling tables and our somewhat
smaller numbers might provide some protection, but the physics
group is not the first one to which I've heard of some similar
"not really wanted back" response [1] and have periodically
wondered if the suggestions (or threats) to take up to Vegas
might turn out, for similar reasons, to be a one-time event
unless it was _really_ in their low season.

    john

[1] FWIW, the city, or the casino hotels as a group, telling a
particular group that it shouldn't come back because they
weren't profitable sounds enough like a conspiracy among
competitors to constrain trade or control rates that I'm not
sure how credible that part of the story is.  But I have heard
of casino hotels writing non-room revenue guarantees into
contracts just as more conventional hotels in more conventional
locations sometimes seek guarantees about use of, e.g., their
catering services and other high-profit activities.
Extrapolation from "good rates for Interop and associated trade
shows and conventions" to "good rates for the IETF" might not
actually work, at least more than once.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 09:50:12 -0800 (PST)

We're way off topic here (when does that ever happen??), but since 
Interop was mentioned: The hotel did not allow (a conference rate for) 
"early arrival," that is to say Saturday before an event that started 
Monday morning, mainly for the reasons (allegedly) that "geeks don't 
gamble," but I do agree with John: I very much doubt we would actually
impact the cash flow of the casino, it's not like they would close it
to outsiders ;-)

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Jan 2016 19:17:00 -0000

>impact the cash flow of the casino, it's not like they would close it

True, and by Vegas standards, the IETF is a pretty small meeting.  The
recent CES had 170,000 attendees and 3800 booths.  I have no love for
Las Vegas, but on a quick peek at the city's meeting planner site I
asked for hotels with at least 1000 rooms, 40K sq ft of meeting space,
and a meeting room that can hold 1500, and it immediately found 19
different hotels that could do that.

On the other hand, some hotels really do tell meetings to go away if
the people are low spenders.  My father used to run a company that
gave short technical courses, several running at once each with 20 to
50 people for 3-5 days.  They'd been using the same hotel for years
until one day the hotel told them we love you, but your people don't
drink enough so you'll have to find another place.

R's,
John

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 22:03:10 +0000

Hi,

If we can get a good deal in Vegas (or wherever else) I don't see why we should drop it just because there is a risk that we are afterwards asked not to come back...

Regards,

Christer

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: John Levine<mailto:[email-masked]>
Sent: ‎10/‎01/‎2016 21:17
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ever more hypothetical Hotel situation

R's,
John

---

From: Theodore V Faber <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:59:20 +0000

On 1/10/16, 11:17, "ietf on behalf of John Levine" <[email-masked]
on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>  They'd been using the same hotel for years

I’m not seeing this as an IETF concern.

-- 
Ted Faber <[email-masked]>
Engineering Specialist
Computer Systems Research Department
310-336-7373

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:30:15 -0500

All;

I’m updating the Venue Data to show the last two years regarding
guest room rates, rooms contracted for on Peak nights and 
number of rooms total in the Hotel.

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 4:45 PM, Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> All;
> 

> 			Price w/o Tax  Peak  Total

London			
  Hilton Metropole	$283 	600	1059
			
Toronto			
Fairmont			$163 	600	1365
			
Honolulu			
  Hilton	$185/$219/$245	600	2860
  Doubletree		$185 	50	317
			
Dallas			
  Fairmont		$169 	500	545
  Magnolia		$135 	100	329
			
Prague			
  Hilton			$138 	600	791
  InterContinental	$130 	200	372
			
Yokohama			
  InterContinental	$153 	300	594
  Tokyu		$91 - $295	220	480
  Navios		$80 - $96		60	137
  Sakuragicho		$93 		100	553
  New Otani	$139 - $217	150	240