Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-14.txt

Ted Lemon <> Wed, 09 May 2018 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D023128896 for <>; Wed, 9 May 2018 13:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0D7V7NOmjK6R for <>; Wed, 9 May 2018 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2DC6129C59 for <>; Wed, 9 May 2018 13:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e8-v6so42520458qth.0 for <>; Wed, 09 May 2018 13:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=VDAgVg9pniKkKMDIS/D/lDSOsFFAV5jF2rNHPoHZXI8=; b=Vk5bxqq6/qQvqcC0ijHewF+D1a4F6WgUDC9BJHBLCd4cgzX/HtsKkdwsCS3BCtbMdz sVQRmm+D0xJKx9H/EF9zcUkhhoe0RW7/E3sxtkq8pyxmoyowRGXHEzBYLBHbpAomqvVO sQqYSSyyNfHlltQW2om3iYxOj6rc9mN1Ghr+ChtMYVtMtyas5kfXVlpaM/bhpxM8P0xv m370yOMYmw6BMwxBiI7IkkwvtApEJUvbuBSdwEoV1rxi/cJj6VQeNI5jBMkK26m9EPQM wRiU+Xlq3lcGOSTeoteQeJ1U4uS9ZilNMpOygm2C+3d1khFBSPBKFhj763GttkIKOElG YkbA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=VDAgVg9pniKkKMDIS/D/lDSOsFFAV5jF2rNHPoHZXI8=; b=YK/VqZQsu3dPnxFCyMbcJyh9FASUpmvouC1nZT+SMUh7tzsnop6gMbcPJqar9AGXpt zh2REf5zqtJ7xQQgQIvNL7i5SynWQBQ4dZrNyMXe8xukkyy9HiPPKGwCWSJ5chIR3wUA iWL0KbRkEb7bmZCCN8cKhNvPMbVnXoyHaUJIzm9lOI0R1VbD4YLYbEQT1zsNUgnK9Ui1 ZGAjXtYEyQOpX1MfLlLRUChIFO27PUkANP3o6ILuereFHJzf/vzaz4ZsAYdm0NV/bbsN aUzNh3aKzCBwCoZGKI7CLyXihmROvPn9AQq1V7GBjKPwQPdvUa1gm4BNibnzTZP3ZCii m1kA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBUbXmsnZv7KcfDObG3aNbZbq0NMYoprQJa+1fWsix0Mab8ayNI +1xXr+WB4nj5K8f6qEi3iBWabA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZqJXWSuEDoL8RujLbb2jb8JYRue61htQ0+QlT4YCcjh52eb9LusA4q0J+ZtSal8FYc7jlLxWA==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:2d10:: with SMTP id n16-v6mr40724664qta.319.1525897250711; Wed, 09 May 2018 13:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id j42-v6sm26176628qtj.46.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 May 2018 13:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DB6C8F66-2E05-4DAE-BC7D-DC91A10708D0"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 16:20:46 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc:, ietf <>
To: Andrew Sullivan <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-14.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 20:20:54 -0000

On May 9, 2018, at 4:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan <> wrote:
> I think we're not asking the secretariat to ascertain whether the
> hotel enforces the smoking policy, and similarly we're not asking the
> secretariat to do mould presence testing.  I don't think we're in a
> position to ask that sort of measurement analysis from the site venue
> selection.  If we actually _want_ that from the selection process, I
> think that we need to make that clear (and then figure out how to pay
> for it, because it won't be free).

I think moulds are fine, but we want to avoid mold.   That said, I agree that this is a valid distinction, but in fact when it's likely to be an issue, as it was in Hiroshima, asking "are the rooms nonsmoking" didn't work either.   In both cases, the site evaluation process requires that someone actually go look at a bunch of rooms in the venue hotel and check to see that there isn't a problem, without first telling the hotel staff specifically what we are looking for, so that they don't know which rooms to steer us toward.

I don't think that we can guarantee perfect results; indeed, it may be that in all cases where this would be a problem, it would also be true that the hotel operator would deliberately mislead the site evaluation team.   But it's a reasonable thing to ask for, and if the site eval team doesn't actually check to see that the hotel operator is telling the truth, there's a real risk of a repeat of Hiroshima.   I don't think that the hotel operator in Singapore would have anticipated the mold issue either—it's just how things are in tropical climates.  This is again something it's reasonable to check during site evaluation.   There is no guarantee that the check will be successful, but it's worth attempting.