IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Hotel situation

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 16 December 2015 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 842121A1BA2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:52:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 7-SUqg19oG3Q for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:52:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 705271A1B30 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:52:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-04.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 172B3DA00A4; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:52:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([169.254.4.19]) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.235.67]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:52:25 -0800
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Hotel situation
Thread-Topic: Hotel situation
Thread-Index: AQHROB/nUHQfokN9VUivPUWC1dsmPp7N0xhQ
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:52:24 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09BC1@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM>
References: <567192F3.9090506@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <567192F3.9090506@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [71.233.41.235]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hH27GlGIHFu3FhSPibAoeRa6ty8>
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: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:52:33 -0000

> 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!   :)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email