Re: [87attendees] [87all] IETF 87 Berlin Meeting Review

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Thu, 15 August 2013 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A7911E821D for <87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.063
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.063 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_51=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uf4VO99FXpTg for <87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x229.google.com (mail-ob0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 829C011E81E2 for <87attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id wc20so1193578obb.0 for <87attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=w40BxNB4AXQGi0Kv4kAhS11HNR0uKOxE69kCVbe+4Xw=; b=NEMQDBR6/xUzFSFoi22TKZNODobt0KFUwnUv4v4YfLjNyBZ538BptIs5CFDmx9y0AX VPRjIYd3quxWwqfyxH5U0dkX+FDtaaQe27pB3+zB/oVIwq6jN6szuhPEnt3Fl/gkCqeU 8FFS8secMmP/R+kzQnZXOOIips780BQ2O3kZ0R0NvJpmWknYhZHIlqcHyQoTo+RGtD7x Z5YwwLlVn9dkdGxfTYSHMwrnsYuCxmD5mIO4lm+73pppunt1na+PF+bQudu1+97ZSKYq BikCqlYqvpzac0EYkdAKRUGis1ytp8B7b9lfIU0HXD02KBmSmqbRox/kypWJuo+dSCyY Hwxw==
X-Received: by 10.182.22.5 with SMTP id z5mr20121918obe.42.1376589204311; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.131.7 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1308151138170.40428@joyce.lan>
References: <C4413723-4E83-44D8-967D-C61564F33843@isoc.org> <CAKKJt-dCsJKzkuWmtPYaLct_9zzbe2HCXBB52QNerC4hHKaqWQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D5C64C2-1187-42A7-B237-8AAEC4810D57@isoc.org> <D1CEAB47-2B80-4FA9-9B18-C018BF10E794@checkpoint.com> <20130814153327.GK3865@mx1.yitter.info> <CAH1iCipcmf6baef+Ehys-OCQ1E6AqStCxYXDDJS8TLW1z+G=_Q@mail.gmail.com> <60958B6B-A77C-4A83-A5CD-336432DBA8D7@ericsson.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1308150927240.39997@joyce.lan> <1DE0D0DF-A90C-4B27-804D-FEBA8098BCD4@ericsson.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1308151138170.40428@joyce.lan>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 13:53:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEEnY21WvK-pipbgnwD5Am7tQi0aJzP3rm15Mpo_wFf6qg@mail.gmail.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Jakob Heitz <jakob.heitz@ericsson.com>, "87attendees@ietf.org" <87attendees@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [87attendees] [87all] IETF 87 Berlin Meeting Review
X-BeenThere: 87attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <87attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/87attendees>, <mailto:87attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/87attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:87attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:87attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/87attendees>, <mailto:87attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 17:53:32 -0000

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>> Don't book more people than rooms.
>> If a booked person doesn't show, let the hotel charge that person a
>> cancellation fee to cover revenue lost due to empty rooms.
>
> Um, you are not the first person ever to think about this issue.  They
> usually do charge a cancellation fee unless you pay the highest rack rate.
> Hotels are unlike airplanes in that they do not know in advance how long
> people will stay, and in many places they're not allowed to kick out a
> client who overstays, and I get the impression that overstays were the
> problem this time.

In most common law countries/states, someone staying in a hotel room
is a tenant in possession and eviction proceedings can be difficult
and lengthy. But there are cases where the hotel industry has enough
clout to change the law. See, for example, Hawai'i Revised Statuses
Section 486K-8.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/2/26/486K/486K-8
It's an extraordinarily simple single sentence, but I guess you have
to read it in the context of the more lengthy definitions in
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/2/26/486K/486K-1

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

> I've been walked, it's not a big deal.  You typically get a better room at a
> hotel within walking distance, for free, and the hotel staff will move your
> luggage back for you when you get unwalked if you ask them to.
>
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
> _______________________________________________
> 87attendees mailing list
> 87attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/87attendees