Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation)



Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 18, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

Let me ask a question. I'm on the IAOC Meetings committee, which is an 
advisory committee that does some research (with AMS) and makes a 
recommendation to Ray, which he then takes to the IAOC. The IAOC sometimes 
agrees with us and sometimes doesn't. You will have just seen a note from Ray 
on this mailer detailing the IAOC's objectives in meeting planning; our 
committee, with strong involvement from AMS, does the investigative legwork 
to try to achieve those.

Right now, I am suggesting a model to Ray, based on a proposal that we have 
seen that would build a multi-meeting contract with a certain hotel. As with 
most business, matters, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss a 
contract below a certain level of detail. But in general terms, this proposal 
comes from a hotel that we have met in multiple times, had successful 
meetings, and as far as we know have met the objectives Ray outlined. We have 
list of places we have met in in which that wasn't true for one reason or 
another; we also have a set of locations that have worked better than the 
average, and done so on multiple occasions. Some of these are in Asia, some 
are in Europe, and some are in North America. Of probable interest to you: 
one of the sites I think mostly works is in Prague.

What I am suggesting to the IAOC is that, over the coming 9 years (27 
meetings), we meet 9 times in Asia (and maybe that includes ANZ), 9 times in 
Europe (and maybe that includes Africa), and 9 times in the Americas. Of 
those, I am suggesting that we meet 3 of the 9 Asian times in a particular 
hotel that has worked well for us in that part of the world, 6 of the 9 
European times in two hotels that have worked well for us in Europe, and in 9 
of the 9 "Americas" times, meet in 3 hotels that have worked well for us in 
the past in the US and Canada. Our world tour would begin to have aspects of 
a rotation. For that to happen, I am suggesting that we ask these specific 
locations whether they, too, would be interested in a multi-meeting contract, 
and to propose terms for such meetings.

Folks from Latin America (e.g., South and Central, generally spanish-speaking 
and portuguese-speaking) will object on the grounds that they would like to 
be included in the rotation. I can respond to that in a couple of ways, one 
of which is that I honestly don't expect to get proposals for 3 meetings in 9 
years from each of the 3 North American hotels on my little list. Also, we 
can probably expect a little flexibility in contracting that would allow us 
to insert a Latin American location by moving one of the venues out a little 
bit. I think the problem is solvable.

What this does is give us a set of locations, for as many as 18 of the coming 
27 meetings, that we know work for the IETF and its purposes, because they 
have in the past. It also gives us at least 9 of the coming 27 meetings in 
which we can explore locations such as you advocate.

What will be the problems with placing those meetings? North America is 
frankly not too hard. Europe takes a little more effort, especially in 
finding a suitable host. Asia/ANZ - we put a lot of effort into that. The 
locations that can offer us the number of bedrooms and breakout rooms we 
need, can honestly discuss having 1500 people walk out of a meeting at 11:30 
and return by 13:00, and are near major hub or regional airports in Asia is a 
little thin, and where we find them, they are expensive.

Let me ask, since you clearly have opinions on such matters - what would you 
think of such an arrangement? What am I missing in such a proposal?


I think the poll or request for input should be broader than the IETF list.  
Jari asked how many people follow this list at a plenary and the percentage 
seemed pretty low.  I suspect that's part of the difference from the meeting 
surveys to the discussions that take place here.  I know I'm stating the 
obvious.

Thanks,
Kathleen