On 8/24/2011 3:33 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:29:34AM -0700, David Morris wrote:
For this to be a meaningful disccusion re. the success or lack there of,
we need to compare what we have vs. similar sized groups in the same
season, etc. at the same venue.
_And_ having negotiated at the same time, as Ray pointed out already
in this thread. Every time one of these discussions comes up, people
seem to forget that the negotiations are happening several years in
advance of the actual event. Agreements about the future almost
always require the party buying to take some risk that they will be
paying more than the going rate at the time the actual sale date
arrives.
This can be minimized, though, right? Maybe the conference room rate
could be set at a percentage of the rack rate, for example.
In the case of hotel agreements, the block negotiator takes
some risk that there will be a lower price or otherwise better terms
actually available at the time of the block being used. The hotel
takes some risk that the block negotiator is unable to deliver the
actual room occupancy negotiated. Each is making a bet.
Yes, but the total risk on the part of the hotel is that it will be in
the normal state of having empty rooms that need to be filled...
If you don't like the cancellation terms (or other terms of the bet),
don't participate in it: don't make a reservation in the IETF block.
And I do, and have for some time now (since I have no corporate expense
account); this has the added benefit (from my POV, YMMV) of actually
_visiting_ Prague, Maastricht, etc. (as opposed to essentially shipping
myself air freight to a facility that could as easily be in Dallas or
(cringe) Minneapolis except that the people might look different or talk
funny, then shipping myself back again).
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf