Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and 111

Mary Barnes <> Fri, 08 January 2016 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E451B2A87 for <>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:27:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iA8p7ZANkm0T for <>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:27:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B75D41B2A80 for <>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:27:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k129so347040528yke.0 for <>; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 09:27:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=0spvxg4BDFJGcZBQVqnxIqi1qTBd0qUhokhTXPQ39IQ=; b=psYX+rdRGr4dvN01dythH/YNg0jI0fxogowpq/BUh4v2SX0BGnwas+qwD7n0tS/oez arfIvy+wxH551HJdvuxwt1SPj0Vqz8kIVbU4o5FevLqzOa9i3HjhyKmBAqh/l6gh7Wd0 S1FDQQ3r5VCzkmLvkY0Iu1PYj/Mnsb3VJ3FKj1zz3qvC5ojdZ34mCH/Fjd9fQQhT0CON SopjfHSNG1ksCEaGXY0BOzHKWZVwAl1hu3mPTpGw5eU8nj6CNJ0YNEUwI/vzlBNQfaC4 kR6XA3/XGMofU2QIPCWKnQRAglytkZMmKVvfDcmkrbknoLfoQk0nRJPT83Ny96a+9DkO lsCw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id h196mr74772849ywc.177.1452274039016; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 09:27:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:27:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1601071125550.21147@rabdullah.local> <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:27:18 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and 111
From: Mary Barnes <>
To: Lou Berger <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114db7303653ab0528d5e6a9"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: John C Klensin <>, Leslie Daigle <>, IETF Discussion <>
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: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 17:27:24 -0000

And, I'd like to suggest that my document with regards to food requirements
be considered in your process of articulating meeting requirements,
arranging contracts, etc.:
I do plan on another revision and requesting publication.  While most folks
loved Berlin, the hotel was a nightmare when it came to eating - I was sick
several times during the week and there was not a satisfactory *real* food
market nearby that I found.  And, in general even at recent meetings, even
though there are what might be considered safe food options during breaks,
 the way they are served generally makes it impossible for me (and others)
to safely partake (e.g., having cheese *and* crackers co-located, etc.).
And, my efforts in working with the staff directly have failed totally - in
London, I had suggested directly to the staff that they put cookies on one
end of the table and veggies on the other to avoid the cross contamination
and was told they would do that once the chef went back to the kitchen as
it would "upset" him for them to do so.  All these issues can be addressed
with sufficient planning and the solutions are quite simple.

Okay - I'm done ranting for now and while many might disagree with my
concerns, I'd like to ask folks to not jump onto this thread and do so and
wait until I update the document .  We can then discuss the issues in that
context and make it easier for those that don't care to ignore.  However, I
do welcome offline comments.


On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Lou Berger <> wrote:

> I'd like to add one additional comment as an IAOC member (but not
> speaking for the IAOC).  I think we, the IAOC and meetings committee,
> can and should do better on transparency of meeting requirements,
> selection process, and contracts.  I'm hoping to see some progress on
> this before/by BA.
> Lou
> On 01/08/2016 10:39 AM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> >
> > The other question that has been on my mind is whether or how we
> > continue to meet as a community.  In my personal opinion, one of the
> > most important things about the IETF *is* the community and having the
> > opportunity to engage one on one.    I go to IETF meetings for hallway
> > conversations as much as anything else.  But — in the span of the next
> > 10 years, it’s not clear to me if we can or should find non-meeting ways
> > to achieve those effects, and get our work done.
> >
> > Absent discussion within and direction from the community on where it
> > thinks we’re headed on that front, I (as an IAOC member) was not
> > comfortable with agreeing to hotel commitments 8+ years out.  It is my
> > understanding that we, in fact, have the ability to cancel the contract
> > for IETF 111 with a survivable penalty a few years out.  I.e., it’s a
> > good deal for current course and speed, and if that changes
> > significantly before we get to the 3 year window, we have the ability to
> > reorganize.
> >
> > I realize that doesn’t address all of the issues you raised, but
> > hopefully it helps at the broad-brushstroke level.
> >
> > Leslie.
> >
> >