John,
I couldn't agree with you more, on each of your points.
One additional point, we should add meeting planning spending to your
transparency list. (do we really want IETF/ISOC meeting money spent on
anything unrelated, e.g., "vacation" planning?)
Lou
On 8/22/2014 1:39 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, August 22, 2014 11:47 -0400 Ray Pelletier
<rpelletier(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org> wrote:
All;
When we were first contracting with the Hilton for IETF 91 the
Hilton was asked about the possibility of offering some
special deals at their other properties in Hawaii for IETFers
before and after the scheduled meeting.
...
Ray,
I'm confident that the meeting committee isn't choosing
locations based on where its members would like to vacation and
hope that confidence is justified. As others have commented, a
Waikiki Beach location fairly screams "boggle" to corporate
travel departments who are sensitive to such things, that (by
reputations and in my experience from several years ago) it is
an expensive area to do much of anything, and that Honolulu is
an expensive place to get to for many of us who attend IETF
without institutional sponsorship. Given that, I find the idea
that you and/or the IAOC would include a discussion of packaging
that IETF meeting with vacation packages insensitive and
troubling.
Perhaps no one actually cares. But, if any corporate or
organizational travel departments get access to your note and
respond, e.g., "we thought this was a boggle, you said it
wasn't, this proves that the IETF gives significant
consideration to vacation opportunities in selecting locations
and negotiating contracts" and pushes back on attendance, it may
be time for the IAOC to carefully (and transparently) review how
selections are made and who is making them.
john