Re: [EXTERNAL] IETF 104 Registration and Hotel Reservations Openo

Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Thu, 10 January 2019 01:36 UTC

Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E19130FCD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 17:36:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.688
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=standardstrack.com
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 UzY8OdAP6s3A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 17:36:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from biz221.inmotionhosting.com (biz221.inmotionhosting.com [198.46.93.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C34D4131091 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 17:36:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=standardstrack.com; s=default; h=Message-Id:In-Reply-To:To:References:Date: Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ik435W+Uu2dQnTo7+rXYQ/y7qlaLVodYKl1rt5hYba0=; b=VQvuG42XpOYX7WAr1+cXEyp+d Ipwt8eLEOgXyszJnP5y/+lVtqst8oafD4viKt+eiJA0hd8ccJLSqNVdXr8kSClSByMWC3JqgUJPgI irbcnoPD7Ia6zZEEFJyjLVspZj7zRTBFVhxdpUL2P2PeGLQZZOn1pXCR1VIQfPOBsHWSY=;
Received: from [68.100.196.217] (port=58907 helo=[192.168.10.26]) by biz221.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1ghPGB-009dDS-Mi for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2019 17:36:00 -0800
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2C33B750-2D1D-45EE-994A-5A5DEC30EBBD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] IETF 104 Registration and Hotel Reservations Openo
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 20:35:49 -0500
References: <20181220194742.39286200BC3F9B@ary.qy> <C4C3E99E-7FDF-42AD-8AAF-BA9A7BF9DF62@soton.ac.uk> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1812211147590.48467@ary.qy> <E0B84494-6B60-4AEB-B8E9-8C6F673624FA@tzi.org> <E73FC76E-6CD5-4543-A189-D51ACC7EAEBE@amsl.com> <167d262e9c8.27ce.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <23396A80-F252-4FFB-B0D0-B17D86F1C73E@amsl.com> <44640168-deb7-c613-3420-ad5df95b1736@labn.net> <956E76FA5156981CD09F5C1F@PSB> <098ecda6-b344-7cb7-5943-d6279ee89108@labn.net> <7C9DD929-2301-4993-9B03-A15B41B8D664@nbcuni.com> <CABmDk8nSnkN=+SFE-t_dAr67OmOG1s2ipE_o1VS_J1vMokHi3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABmDk8nSnkN=+SFE-t_dAr67OmOG1s2ipE_o1VS_J1vMokHi3A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <3F1FDEB5-8C3C-4741-9AE1-998F4C21DFEA@standardstrack.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=2.5
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz221.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz221.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
X-Authenticated-Sender: biz221.inmotionhosting.com: eburger@standardstrack.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XDlybnm-fJfn9UVZCXF7j2rntlE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 01:36:03 -0000

When I was young and on the IAOC, most of our contracts included a clause that said that no matter how an individual booked the room, if they stayed at the conference hotel and attended the IETF, the booking counted towards our room-night commitment. The hotels may have negotiated that away, but if not, we may be worrying about nothing.

> On Jan 7, 2019, at 9:53 AM, Mary B <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Just as an aside, the lower rates weren't on another booking website. They were on the Hilton.com website.  I will also note that some of the ones available on hilton.com <http://hilton.com/> were noted to be recently remodeled rooms.   I didn't see that for the IETF room block.  Given past experiences with the difference between refurbed rooms and non-refurbed, this is a bigger deal IMHO.
> 
> Personally, I don't think the general notion of lower priced options is a big issue either way since IETF meeting hotel almost always sells out quickly.  And, breakfast was included in IETF rate and not in some of the other rates, so I think the other rates were likely fairly equivalent in that regards.    Now, Prague maybe different in terms of filling the room block because we've been there a number of times, so folks may have optimized their search for lower price options as is.
> 
> Regards,
> Mary.
> 
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 3:41 PM Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) <Glenn.Deen@nbcuni.com <mailto:Glenn.Deen@nbcuni.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Jan 6, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net <mailto:lberger@labn.net>> wrote:
> >
> > Obviously we can't change existing contracts, but we can stop asking that the "no lower rates offered" clause be inserted in future contracts -- again, it is my understanding (which of course can simply be wrong) that this clause was first added to hotel contracts by the IETF, specifically the IAD at that time.
> >
> > Lou
> 
> I’m not sure I agree with you in this.  The purpose of the clause is to say “the IETF negotiated rate is the lowest that the hotel will offer during the meeting window.”  In other words they are agreeing negotiate one rate with the IETF as part of our overall meeting contract and agreeing to also not then go and negotiate a undercutting rate with some travel web site for instance.
> 
> One big part of this is intended to make sure the ietf rate is the best rate across its whole block.  Another big part related to the first is that ietf attendees do not need to worry they there was a better deal that they missed because they didn’t spend a couple
> of hours on other travel sites, or a better deal because the booker early or waited.
> 
> Being consistent for the whole IETF room block is an important part of this negotiation.   While a hotel may offer a couple of rooms at a discount they certainly aren’t doing that for any number of rooms as big as the ietf block which can be (simplified general numbers here)   600 rooms at say 6 nights for a total of 3600 room nights that are available to IETF attendees all for the same price.
> 
> This is as opposed to what I’ve seen on many hotel booking sights where the price changes up or down each night and you are
> competing against every other customer to grab the cheapest rates before they are gone. Or you get a cheap first or last night and pay more for all the others.
> 
> This is very different to the ietf rate which is the same for every room night for every attendees and is the same if you book as soon as registration opens or if you book just before arriving.
> 
> The ietf gets a consistent and good rate for all its rooms and all times of booking. That’s a huge benefit for ietf participants, especially those that have to wait to get approval before booking their travel.
> 
> Opposed to that consistency is the kind of room pricing that places like PriceLine engage in. Sure some individuals can get some deals occasionally, but it’s one thing to compete against the open market especially if you don’t have a particular goal of staying in a specific meeting hotel - it is an entirely different thing to pit IETF attendees against one another to edge out each other for a better room rate while leaving the scraps to those willing to pay the full rack rate when the supply gets low (which is a real and painful part of playing the hotel pricing market place).
> 
> So I don’t agree removing the clause is in the best interest of the ietf community.  It requires the hotel to act consistently with all IETFers who book a room at the hotel and it says that they do not need to waste time
> hunting across the hotel discount sites looking for a better deal - because they have already got the best deal to be found on those sites.
> 
> I will add that the IETF main mailing list is not the place to debate ietf meeting hotel practices. That belongs on mtgvenue@ietf.org <mailto:mtgvenue@ietf.org> which is the working group for meeting venue stuff.
> 
> 
> Regards
> Glenn
>