Re: [94attendees] IHG "Non-qualifying Stay"?

Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> Wed, 18 November 2015 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
X-Original-To: 94attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 94attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811461A1BBE for <94attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:24:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RDGUiBK6J42b for <94attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:24:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F4C01A1BB9 for <94attendees@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:24:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.123.7] (unknown [75.83.2.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 20970509C2 for <94attendees@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:24:01 -0500 (EST)
To: 94attendees@ietf.org
References: <E0B9279C-1A3C-4E61-8F7E-6D78B15AA8BA@netapp.com> <22085.62797.741761.727196@tale.kendall.corp.akamai.com> <5e70f48cb49043408ceeeaedebd34f10@XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com> <22311667-3592-4CE4-A65D-DB2A1B90D09A@netapp.com> <82AB329A76E2484D934BBCA77E9F5249A6799E00@PALLENE.office.hd> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1511181126110.55717@fledge.watson.org> <E63AF10D-B895-4FE0-98C2-BE4BB00C602A@gmail.com> <6C72AC8E-50CA-459A-84EC-A189163D146B@consulintel.es>
From: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
Message-ID: <564CC1DA.4000404@seantek.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:22:18 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6C72AC8E-50CA-459A-84EC-A189163D146B@consulintel.es>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms010704030700030903040509"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/94attendees/Vf7-JMB1E-W-niUooVSb4T9KuKQ>
Subject: Re: [94attendees] IHG "Non-qualifying Stay"?
X-BeenThere: 94attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list of IETF 94 attendees that have opted in on this list. " <94attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/94attendees>, <mailto:94attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/94attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:94attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:94attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/94attendees>, <mailto:94attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 18:24:06 -0000

I agree with Jordi Martinez that points are relevant.

It does not hurt (actually, it helps) for the IAOC to *ask* about 
preserving rewards points and qualifying stays. The IAOC representative 
can credibly state that there are going to be more particpants than will 
fill the room block anyway, so people have their choice in hotels (with 
overflow hotels etc.), and this is one factor that they can tell the 
membership/attendees will be preserved when choosing amongst hotels.

FWIW I got a lot of points when we stayed at the Hilton Hawaiian Village 
at IETF 91, plus 10% off the already discounted stay (cash back deal). 
10% off covered the majority of the meals in Hawaii. Hilton also 
inundated me with timeshare offers. I ended up getting a very nice trip 
to Vegas out of it for dirt cheap.

I do not think that the IAOC should make a decision based on whether a 
hotel gives rewards. Folks who are objecting on this list are probably 
concerned about the proposition that the IAOC would select a more 
expensive hotel (for the IETF/Internet Society) simply because it offers 
points. That should not be the case, so put it to rest.

But you don't get what you don't ask for--it's as simple as that.

Sean

On 11/18/2015 8:42 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> I understand that, but you also probably understand that many folks pay the hotel, IETF cost, flight, etc., from their own pocket, so being able to keep the points is VERY relevant for saving some nights at future meetings.
>
>
>