ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation)

2015-12-19 09:45:47
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Shockey" <richard(_at_)shockey(_dot_)us>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>; "Michal Krsek"
<michal(_at_)krsek(_dot_)cz>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2015 1:57 PM

+1

Vancouver or anywhere in Canada Forever. I appreciate the problem with
US visas.

<tp>

I think that visas is the other factor, beside getting there and having
the facilities to get the work done, that keeps on surfacing(and appears
at the end of item 9 in Ray's recent list). As has already been said, in
these threads, the IAOC will not be able to acquire the fine detail of
what is required for participants from 192 countries to visit all the
places we go (just as the IAOC is unlikely to have much success in
persuading places where we would like to go to build bigger hotels with
adequate facilities for us).  But if the IAOC focussed on making it
simpler, more straightforward for people to get into the USA, then I
think there would be a case for holding more meetings in the USA, which
solves the problems of the lack of facilities since the USA is
well-endowed.

For myself, from Europe, I much prefer travelling to Mid to Eastern USA
as opposed to continental Europe or Asia but do see those e-mails from
people in places we would like to encourage about the difficulties they
encounter in understanding what they need to do.

At a slight tangent, I read this morning, in another context, of someone
being denied access to the USA because while they had the relevant
Electronic replacement for the visa waiver, they were expected to have a
printed copy (silly me, thinking that electronic means electronic; memo
to self - always print the electronic document and let's fell a few
trees).  It is that sort of detail - print it out, just in case - that
we can make a difference and is an area where the IAOC could make that
difference.

Tom Petch

Though I must say most of us believed the Minneapolis Hilton actually
had the optimal lay out of meeting rooms and no management type one ever
believed it was a junket.  Berlin or Prague on the short list as well.

I’ve already made my decision NOT to go to Buenos Aries.




On 12/18/15, 4:31 PM, "ietf on behalf of Fred Baker (fred)"
<ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of 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?