Re: Hotel situation

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Thu, 17 December 2015 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 74E151A92EA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:16:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 G-L6RSnGS-uI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:16:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C731D1A92AF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:16:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (75-128-113-61.dhcp.aldl.mi.charter.com [75.128.113.61]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 201DA61D76; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:16:04 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Hotel situation
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A19A8374-1F99-45CF-9704-4CDA35818D37"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
In-Reply-To: <1DEF233B-FBA8-4750-AB4B-3E0F55822C9E@isoc.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 19:16:03 -0500
Message-Id: <9B6B4F7E-9E93-4919-8C62-BBC11E027676@chopps.org>
References: <567192F3.9090506@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09BC1@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <56719864.8010604@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09C09@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <56719B42.2040902@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1512160924570.39773@rabdullah.local> <D296DF8F.8DA39%glenn.deen@nbcuni.com> <1DEF233B-FBA8-4750-AB4B-3E0F55822C9E@isoc.org>
To: Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jkLE7rHCo2__8se7s3sK20iovno>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:16:06 -0000

> On Dec 16, 2015, at 6:24 PM, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Typically if we don’t get our target room block it’s because there’s another group
> at the hotel, or sometimes it’s because the hotel is concerned about the risk
> of setting aside 70 - 90% for a group they’ve never done business with.  This concern
> is also typically reflected in the cancellation provisions for guest rooms they will
> sign up to, and/or when they start cutting back the number of rooms in the block.
> All of which is evident in our first meeting in Latin America and Buenos Aires.


I believe that IETF is probably trying as hard as it can to do the best job it can; however, I wonder about something from above:

I'm not sure if "all of which" included the "never done business with" or how exactly hilton works, but it seems to me that we've done quite a bit of business with hilton. Is one hilton not able to talk to our previous hilton's or corporate headquarters to get information on our group? This would be unfortunate as that information seems very useful for the new hilton to have.

Thanks,
Chris.