Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions
john+ietf@jck.com Sat, 02 August 2008 22:49 UTC
Return-Path: <72attendees-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 72attendees-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-72attendees-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 122F83A6B6A; Sat, 2 Aug 2008 15:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: 72attendees@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 72attendees@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C447F3A6AC3 for <72attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Aug 2008 15:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QId5LKX47vBq for <72attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Aug 2008 15:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C02E43A6B6A for <72attendees@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Aug 2008 15:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1KPPuZ-000KKS-FE; Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:49:19 -0400
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:49:18 -0400
From: john+ietf@jck.com
To: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <BF16D79E2A63CA342D2F01EE@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0808021119510.26658@pita.cisco.com>
References: <C4B78D93.77300%jonne.soininen@nsn.com> <p0624060dc4b9400efa84@[172.16.14.74]> <CABCA2979E1D86FA0BBEA067@p3.JCK.COM> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0808021119510.26658@pita.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: 72attendees@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions
X-BeenThere: 72attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for the attendees of IETF 72 meeting." <72attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees>, <mailto:72attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/72attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:72attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:72attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees>, <mailto:72attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: 72attendees-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: 72attendees-bounces@ietf.org
--On Saturday, 02 August, 2008 11:26 -0700 Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com> wrote: > One thing that isn't completely clear to me is if this > "problem" is unique to Ireland. Is it really reasonable to > expect a hotel in, say, Minneapolis to be more clued in about > this than one in Dublin? By "reasonable" I don't mean "fair" > -- in an ideal world the full range of options should be > available. I mean "would you just expect them to know X ?" Ole, I think that, for any given dietary issue or rule, there will be places that will be more sensitive to it than others. To take a handy example involving ICANN rather than the IETF, there are special (and quite rigorous) Islamic rules about types, cuts, and handling of meat. One might have more trouble finding restaurants who understand those rules and can deal with them in, e.g., Sao Paulo or Los Angeles relative to, e.g., Cairo. While the list is different, there are places where the degree of sensitivity to food allergies and digestive sensitivities are higher or lower than it is in others (the same thing could be said about cigarette smoke, particulates in the air, and wheelchair accessibility). > Now, when we go to Hiroshima there probably WILL be some > issues that the local caterers simply do not comprehend Based on stories and experience during the Yokohama meeting, one is that "vegetarian" does not mean "vegetables stir-fried in fish oil". > and > if someone would like to compile a list of > questions/concerns/requirements we (the IAOC in cooperation > with the local host) can certainly do our best to pass the > information along and, where possible, find acceptale > solutions. We have more than a year to work on this. Ack. But let's not make ourselves, or each other, crazy. The main goal should be information -- which might even include information that, for some people, the difficulties are great enough that they should participate remotely-- not trying to anticipate and solve every possible problem or meet every possible need. I think the IAOC should aspire to a minimum of surprises and getting the information out early enough that people can plan accordingly (i.e., not a few days before they get on airplanes). john _______________________________________________ 72attendees mailing list 72attendees@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees
- [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Dale Worley
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Dave Crocker
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Yoav Nir
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Mary Barnes
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Dale Worley
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Dale Worley
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Mary Barnes
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Mary Barnes
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Mary Barnes
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Dan Wing
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Mary Barnes
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Even, Roni
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Randall Gellens
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Ted Lemon
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions John C Klensin
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions john+ietf
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [72attendees] Dietary restrictions john+ietf