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

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 18 November 2015 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.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 BB5D91A1A3B for <94attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 08:31:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_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 93yY2EKj43iG for <94attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 08:31:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x236.google.com (mail-qg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C7691A0115 for <94attendees@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 08:31:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qgad10 with SMTP id d10so31696201qga.3 for <94attendees@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 08:31:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:message-id :references:to; bh=Bn8ZaE+stQX2PpgoF2uxuWtoKaNEUrr11URZJ6B5Hc0=; b=KxPQ0Jh3Pl5T4cM8i8DCVpFdAWZLL4oqfuQQ0VjU+El4OZ6oCr2xKUMqcBYlkPWVUB t1QjHinn15+LWQSBnWvDxtGETosCs7E5r/cfAd2MIdwdfUHqlptPCCl/4jXhaAV/SnAO 0ze+C1AxVB0ry3kDlJQ5LQhZSYBnA/H1dm3bAktL9az20jgHoCJ5RU92h/t8x1WAoCHP b2f6jT8zKysi9QK+RVGOJEy3vhe+Z/2QE53S7PJg/8ASUyRlKzF/dRMDfeo59CiwhmLa nHOBrW74Kzij+eA6n/Gji8LW14JIFIXN3BH+3lbqYja5ZT8eUwl2Zsjl1FWWTVxODu6o M+ig==
X-Received: by 10.140.93.14 with SMTP id c14mr2356093qge.59.1447864282284; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 08:31:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.131.118.159] ([173.38.117.85]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a19sm1075965qgf.45.2015.11.18.08.31.21 for <94attendees@ietf.org> (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 18 Nov 2015 08:31:21 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D2AB3788-C12F-4B51-958A-AAB600CC1F19"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1511181126110.55717@fledge.watson.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:31:18 -0500
Message-Id: <E63AF10D-B895-4FE0-98C2-BE4BB00C602A@gmail.com>
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>
To: "94attendees@ietf.org" <94attendees@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/94attendees/bLwvEJSWXsnZ4rX_DC5dU4f5V8g>
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 16:31:24 -0000

Speaking strictly for myself, the issue of loyalty program points is completely immaterial to me and I don't want the IAC spending its time on the issue.

- Ralph

> On Nov 18, 2015, at 11:27 AM 11/18/15, Samuel Weiler <weiler+ietf@watson.org>; wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Dirk Kutscher wrote:
> 
>> Regarding the IAOC, I am really against requesting information on reward programs etc. from the IAOC.
>> 
>> First, it's too much effort (there are different reward programs with different conditions...).
> 
> All the more reason to save duplication of that effort.
> 
> I don't need loyalty programs to be a factor in picking venues, but if things are going to be odd (e.g. meeting rates don't earn points), we should be told up front.  And this is not about digging into the rules for all the different programs - it's about asking one more question once the IAOC decides we're going to a particular hotel.
> 
> -- Sam
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 94attendees mailing list
> 94attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/94attendees