Re: Hotel situation

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 04 January 2016 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D071A9114 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:00:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.663
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 eF6AXfxmilJW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:00:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6679E1A9105 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:00:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 37987 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2016 20:00:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 4 Jan 2016 20:00:43 -0000
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 20:00:21 -0000
Message-ID: <20160104200021.12794.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Hotel situation
In-Reply-To: <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF6449900E0@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TTykiPcKhheCXN5jp5eWFFlewQM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 20:00:56 -0000

In article <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF6449900E0@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> you write:
>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.

In this case, it's not the hotel's fault.  They only have 417 rooms
total, and the IETF block has over 300 of them.  The Sheraton where
ICANN met has 742, still not close to enough for the IETF, and those
are the only hotels in B.A. with large meeting spaces.

The number of locations in the world that can provide 1000 reasonably
priced rooms a short walk from a an adequate conference facility is
not enormous.  From all the recent grumbling, it sounds like it might
make sense to direct the IAOC to stick to places that have worked well
in the past, even at the cost of not going everywhere someone might
want to go.

R's,
John