Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: Hilton Prague)

Randall Gellens <randy@qualcomm.com> Sat, 24 March 2007 21:10 UTC

Return-path: <68attendees-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVDVm-0006y2-Mj; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:10:54 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVDVl-0006xx-Jx for 68attendees@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:10:53 -0400
Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.59]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVDVk-0000U8-7o for 68attendees@ietf.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:10:53 -0400
Received: from sabrina.qualcomm.com (sabrina.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.150]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.13.6/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id l2OLAogj020044 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:10:50 -0700
Received: from [[10.0.0.54]] (vpn-10-50-16-74.qualcomm.com [10.50.16.74]) by sabrina.qualcomm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/1.0) with ESMTP id l2OLAlOd027253; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:10:49 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240600c22b4330e5a7@[[10.0.0.54]]>
In-Reply-To: <E494099B5ACEC25B26C1BD5C@[10.5.0.28]> <1174765470.31407.286.camel@localhost> <C22B3189.3BF72%Jonne.Soininen@nokia.com>
References: <E494099B5ACEC25B26C1BD5C@[10.5.0.28]> <C22B3189.3BF72%Jonne.Soininen@nokia.com> <1174765470.31407.286.camel@localhost> <C22B3189.3BF72%Jonne.Soininen@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
X-message-flag: Warning: Outlook in use. Upgrade to Eudora: <http://www.eudora.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:10:43 -0700
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, 68attendees@ietf.org, "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <Jonne.Soininen@nokia.com>, Aaron Stone <aaron@serendipity.cx>
From: Randall Gellens <randy@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: Hilton Prague)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44
Cc:
X-BeenThere: 68attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for IETF 68 attendees." <68attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees>, <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/68attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:68attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees>, <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: 68attendees-bounces@ietf.org

At 10:46 AM -0400 3/24/07, John C Klensin wrote:

>  I like the hotel and the staff and the facilities.  I mostly like 
> the city.   Under the right circumstances, I'd be delighted to come 
> back.

I agree.

>  I think there are issues about health and accessibility that 
> supercede _any_ other considerations of meeting site choices. In 
> order to have effective IETF meetings that are open to all 
> participants and contributors in the IETF, we must put 
> health-related criteria above all others.   If a country or city or 
> hotel does not, or cannot, provide an environment in which people 
> can attend a meeting for a week without the certainty of serious 
> and immediate health damage from the atmosphere (indoor or 
> outdoor), I will defend their right to make that decision, but the 
> IETF should not even consider meeting there.   If a facility and 
> city are not largely wheelchair-accessible, the IETF should not 
> even consider meeting there.  And so on (although I don't think the 
> list is very long).

Absolutely.  Very well put.  Thank you, John.


At 7:50 PM +0200 3/24/07, Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo) wrote:

>  Though as an allergic person I'm very sympathetic to the requirements you
>  listed, I would like to give you a bit food for though: What is the standard
>  of air quality / health risk we should compare to? For instance, Europe has
>  banned gene manipulated food, and the use of growth hormones for domestic
>  animals because of health risks. Should we then avoid countries whose
>  standards are lesser because of health risks? What about outside air quality
>  and smog? And mercury levels in the locally available fish?

I see this along the lines John laid out: if the facilities pose a 
barrier to participation, that is a problem.  Longer-term potential 
risks are not an immediate threat.  This includes mercury or PCB 
contamination, radon levels in the building, etc.


At 12:44 PM -0700 3/24/07, Aaron Stone wrote:

>  So let's add one more: if the hotel is in a country that allows smoking
>  indoors, the hotel must arrange for a significant non-smoking portion of
>  the lobby to allow free movement of smoke-sensitive participants from
>  the front door to the registration to the conference rooms.

The problem with such approaches is that the smoke does not know to 
stay within the boundaries of an arbitrary-defined region.  Not even 
geopriv can help there, unfortunately.  Consider the oft-repeated 
no-peeing section in a swimming pool.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Some days you feel like Schrodinger's cat.   --M. S. Hutchenreuther

_______________________________________________
68ATTENDEES mailing list
68ATTENDEES@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees