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

[Aaron Stone <[e-mail]>]

I seems to me that a non-smoking lobby area should simply be one of the
many things that are negotiated with the conference venue. There must
already be negotiations on which and how many conference rooms, hotel
rooms, bringing in Internet access, and so on.

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.

Aaron

On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 19:50 +0200, Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)
wrote:
> John,
> 
> 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?
> 
> There are many risks to travelling in general. In addition, you are exposed
> to different health risks in foreign countries than at home, or different
> levels of the same risks.
> 
> If the IETF should take these risks into account we should consider what is
> the standard to compare against. I'm not sure who could make that assessment
> and which criteria should be used.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jonne.
> 
> 
> On 3/24/07 4:46 PM, "ext John C Klensin" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > For those expressing a desire to return --soon and often-- to
> > Prague and his hotel, one thought...
> > 
> > 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 am also sympathetic to, and agree with, those who say "if you
> > decide to come into a particular culture, you accept the norms
> > of that culture and work with them".
> > 
> > However,..
> > 
> > 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).
> > 
> > There may be tradeoffs if a facility can provide a truly
> > effective smoke-free environment or adequate mobility
> > accommodations -- telling an IETF participant that he or she may
> > not be able to comfortably leave the meeting hotel for a week is
> > unattractive, but may not be a showstopper if there are adequate
> > facilities within the meeting hotel.  But telling people that
> > the cannot attend and participate and remain healthy is, from my
> > perspective, just not acceptable if we have any other possible
> > choice.
> > 
> > In the case of Prague, we heard the argument many times in the
> > week before the meeting that this choice of city was reasonable
> > because there are lots of participants in Europe and, to a
> > European, one city is as good as another.  Ok.  But, if one
> > believes that, then there is no excuse for going to a city that
> > hasn't accepted growing norms, even in Europe, about indoor air
> > quality (or, for that matter, accessibility standards or
> > anything else that belongs on this short list of absolute
> > priorities.
> > 
> > Even the "need to look at the people various visa regulations
> > will keep out" issue is, to me, secondary to this one even
> > though I consider that one very, very, important and hope we
> > will never again hold two consecutive meetings that de facto
> > exclude the same people.
> > 
> > I am luckier than Randy because my body's potentially serious
> > reactions to small amounts of tobacco smoke can be kept within
> > reasonable levels by a combination of caution and drugs.  But I
> > don't like some of the drugs and, more important, they
> > significantly reduce my ability to function (as some people may
> > have noticed this week).  To either of us, this type of
> > environment is a fairly clear "don't come and participate
> > remotely if at all" message.   I do not believe IETF should be
> > delivering that message, especially to active contributors.
> > 
> >     john
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 68ATTENDEES mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees
> 


_______________________________________________
68ATTENDEES mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees