Re: Hotel situation

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Monday, January 04, 2016 12:20 -0600 Mary Barnes
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> [MB] My personal thought here is that the change has been due
> to the fact that we seem to be going to more exotic venues and
> also to venues that are more touristy destinations - e.g.,
> Orlando during one of the busiest weeks of the year, Europe in
> the summer, Hawaii in November, etc.  I realize that it's a
> minority that prefers Minneapolis, but I'd like to see the
> data in terms of length and degree of participation and
> contribution to IETF that goes along with the preferences for
> various destinations and it would also be nice to see how many
> people that prefer more popular tourist destinations travel
> with companions that would have no interest whatsoever to
> spend time in Minneapolis in the winter.   I understand a bit
> that the popular touristy destinations attract more paying
> participants but I question whether they attract more long
> term contributors. 
>...

Mary,

I share your concern, but three observations to add to your note:

(1) While it is clear that people who favor going back to
Minneapolis are in the minority of the Meetings Committee (at
least as they and the IAOC count votes), it is much less clear
that such people are in the minority of active participants in
the IETF.

(2) The data your note requests have been requested several
times.  I don't know whether they are really hard to collect, or
hard to report on, but it is not a subject on which the IAOC has
chosen to be forthcoming.  If the community considers this
important, it needs to make it clear to those who appoint IAOC
members (the IESG, IAB, and Nomcom at different intervals, but
including Nomcom-appointed people who serve ex-officio on the
IAB) that it _is_ important, important enough that people who
won't promise the community that they will push for data
reporting along those lines should not be appointed.

(3) Finally, at least based on experience trying to reserve
hotels for other bodies, at least two additional things are
working against us that were not, e.g., pre-crash.   One is
that, often, trying to work three (or nine) years in advance and
get contracts in place may work against us -- the hotels, like
the airlines under somewhat-similar circumstances with
advanced-purchase fares, are naturally inclined to hold some
rooms back in the hope of later selling them at a higher rate.
Within limits and all other things being equal, the less in
advance one tries to get them to commit, the better a sense they
have about what they are going to be able to market to others at
a higher rate and the more rooms (and at better prices) we are
likely to be able to negotiate.    Second, my impression is that
the number of non-plenary, non-WG, meeting rooms we "need" to
reserve has gone up very significantly.  That puts additional
constraints on the number of hotels that can accommodate us (or
are willing to) and hence, in all likelihood, what we can
negotiate (if only because the hotels perfectly well know that
our options are limited).  Whether we need all of those spaces
or not, it is fairly clear to me that the community has not been
asked what it would be willing to sacrifice some of them in
order to get better deals, larger blocks, etc., and the IAOC and
Meetings Committee have certainly not asked (one has to assume
either because they think the community is incapable of
understanding the issues or that they know what answers they
would get and wouldn't like them).

best,
   john