The fuss is all about the fact that the trains between Hiroshima or a
flight leg from Frankfurt to Prague, for example can't be compared to
the train experience to/from Maastricht in terms of convenience in
scheduling, ease in purchasing ticketss, quality of transport and
comfort (in my experience). Information about the trains to Hiroshima
was provided well ahead of time and was extremely accurate and
informative (down to the detail of not changing at the central Tokyo
station). The trains to Hiroshima were far superior in quality and
comfort than those to Maastricht. The train I took to Maastricht was
decrepit - two cars that were filthy, with the filthiest restroom I
have EVER seen in my entire life and I've seen alot having traveled in
a station wagon all around the US as a child. And, unfortunately, I
had no choice but to use the facilities on the train since the public
restroom at the lovely Liege station was closed at 10pm at nite. I
barely caught the last train to Maastricht due to flight delays and I
got very lucky in that there was a cab dropping someone at the train
station in Maastricht when I arrived, otherwise I would have had to
walk to my hotel as the train station was entirely shutdown when I
So, AT MOST, I would consider Maastricht a Tertiary location as I
would the venue in Dublin and as I would a conference center located
15 minutes from my house despite it being 15 minutes from the 3rd
busiest international airport in the world because there are no
restaurants nearby and folks that stayed at other hotels would need a
car to get there.
In my opinion Hiroshima was a very satisfactory venue - the trains
were clean, easy to use and the meeting venue was located in a city
center (near all the hotels) with plenty of nearby choices for finding
food. These are all very, very basic and simple criteria to meet,
unfortunately, Maastricht did not satisfy any of them.
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Fred Baker <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hiroshima, Barcelona, and Maastricht are equally "secondary" to me. I take a
commuter flight, I take a flight between hubs, and I do something else
(flight or train, and the train's a lot more comfortable than flying), and
I'm there. If I'm on three flights or two and a train, to me that's pretty
normal. Leaves me wondering what the fuss is about.
I've attached the www.hipmunk.com report on "how to get from Barcelona to
If you're arguing against Maastricht on the basis of it being secondary, do
you really want to go there?
Maastricht didn't met any of both choices.
I don't think the responsibility of the IAOC/secretariat finish by providing
the venue and hotels. It must be a GOOD venue. Otherwise we may choose as
venue ANY city lost in a far corner of any country, right ? And that should
include the most obvious info about how to reach the venue (especially if is
not next to an international airport). If somebody take the risk of choosing
an alternative path, of course, that's a different history.
I agree they need to be good venues. Was Hiroshima a good venue, by your
analysis? It seemed very good to me. So did Maastricht, although we had to
fix the Internet access in the conference hotel. My only complaint there, to
be honest, is that I used Swisscom in the Crowne Plaza and several other
hotels while in Europe, and with the exception of the NH Airport Brussels,
they all had loss rates on the order of 1% or greater for the duration that I
was measuring. I thought Maastricht was a great city.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list