RE: Hotel situation

Eric Gray <> Mon, 04 January 2016 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 210BD1A8A66 for <>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 08:39:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UTSn_2TJke8O for <>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 08:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EE831A8A5A for <>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 08:39:02 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f799c6d000007d66-80-568aa0196636
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F8.19.32102.910AA865; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 17:38:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:39:01 -0500
From: Eric Gray <>
To: Ted Lemon <>, Melinda Shore <>, IETF Discussion <>
Subject: RE: Hotel situation
Thread-Topic: Hotel situation
Thread-Index: AQHROB/qaQqJBcxF+kWlF3iYU6o3Dp7OJ9gAgB19S1A=
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:39:00 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09BC1@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM>
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09BC1@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrOLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPlK7kgq4wg1OfNCyebZzPYtHWNovF Ymt3rAOzx85Zd9k9liz5yeTx+sB81gDmKC6blNSczLLUIn27BK6MV9sOsBRM4Km48qONrYHx KGcXIyeHhICJxMQbjxkhbDGJC/fWs3UxcnEICRxhlFj9ZxkTSEJIYBmjxP9jaiA2m4CGxLE7 a8EaRAQKJRadWg9WIywgI3Hh/V0WiLisxI9z86BqrCTOfdgKZrMIqEism7wGzOYV8JXYPucz kM0BND9HovlGNUiYU8BPYt67F2wgNiPQPd9PrQEbzywgLnHryXwmiDsFJJbsOc8MYYtKvHz8 jxXCVpTY1z+dHaJeR2LB7k9sELa2xLKFr5kh1gpKnJz5hGUCo+gsJGNnIWmZhaRlFpKWBYws qxg5SosLcnLTjQw3MQKj45gEm+MOxr29nocYBTgYlXh4CyS6woRYE8uKK3MPMUpwMCuJ8BYU AYV4UxIrq1KL8uOLSnNSiw8xSnOwKInzJso0hgkJpCeWpGanphakFsFkmTg4pRoYc38qdfpd qtdmeP5RombBfD4pVpNr4vytT93nvDzsfL6K4xOrq/LaD2leGw4XdrE++HWrzW9mwo3voZai 8aHpXR9uHaiKUM298S/iRWDGkcMNTxpa8vafPn125zzO2TtuKChoJgq7Sdz22LD+VdjkDD3v r2uOVJqvmL4yTy3lQy4n793fR3YUKbEUZyQaajEXFScCAJYFuvyKAgAA
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:39:04 -0000

One odd thing is that there are other groups who can't tell you what week they're going to have a meeting any time in the next 6-7 years, but who can seem to get block sizes for a larger percentage of the attendees at meetings this year than the 15-25% we seem to get for IETF meetings anymore.

And this has been a worsening trend.  I've attended most IETF meetings in the last 20 years (I have the t-shirts to prove it) and I can remember when it was still possible to book a room at one of the meeting hotels at the IETF rate at least up to the block cut-off date (as opposed to an hour after the hotel information is made available).

Something changed for IETF hotel bookings about the time of the bubble-burst and most of us don't have any visibility into what that is.  We can speculate, but there seems to be empirical data that supports the idea that it is not an unsolvable problem.


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 11:52 AM
To: Melinda Shore; IETF Discussion
Subject: RE: Hotel situation

> Why are we continuing to have hotel issues meeting after meeting
> after meeting after meeting?

Because we can't force hotels to give us large allocations.   This was discussed at length at the last plenary.   Getting venues that do everything we want is hard.

That said, I think you'd make a great candidate for the IAOC next time if you feel like trying to disprove this point!   :)