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

Andrew Sullivan <> Thu, 10 May 2018 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8A46126C22; Thu, 10 May 2018 05:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=VeAFbMXQ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=OFyyVBOg
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gu8crSPpe7xE; Thu, 10 May 2018 05:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 618CA12421A; Thu, 10 May 2018 05:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14298BF70E; Thu, 10 May 2018 12:09:20 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; t=1525954160; bh=nMvForMbNB9BBeLZSgSE9gV6YaR62j3sOb9LQ82CTrY=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=VeAFbMXQhZ9BoxLLKywa25J6b2opN5Tm/+FX9LlaDT9q1YRNd9kMntT9FkMRuNVB7 GLgTsZUxCbRObs7oKgLhR4mwQ2QdYhe9WV8Q0SSxtKUMyUF+Ver2RTB6T/gRLVTT69 2JUkrWcpbosfD6Dg5hsR2JMSdUhR2p+n1mooOOuQ=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5nB4CeOqH0wW; Thu, 10 May 2018 12:09:17 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 08:09:15 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; t=1525954157; bh=nMvForMbNB9BBeLZSgSE9gV6YaR62j3sOb9LQ82CTrY=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=OFyyVBOgoEPd/QWXXW6RQRh+Jbvd5aCHdIOILznXtU/6PtwL1tcIoIwLu9Tv/FnE4 m5kFV4Zw4xCDJ97Sw34YQNSR7on74SSQ44BiR8VjoCk3ndCmQUlvBVPwET05gsbNLF S9pzPMS644TW8Yp00IewC14d4q2FiVSOzHYB+k7s=
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
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: Thu, 10 May 2018 12:09:53 -0000

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:43:16AM +0100, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> It seems to me that "no-smoking" is a pretty standard policy and relatively
> simple to include and to police.

_How_ is it simple to police?  That's part of the problem with it.
It's trivial to find out whether a given locale prohibits smoking or
whether a given hotel has a no-smoking room block.  It is quite a bit
harder to be sure, two or three years in advance, whether that
prohibition will actually be working in the Venue.  In some parts of
the world, I have been in hotels on non-smoking floors where I could
actually see the smoke seeping out underneath someone's door.  What
exactly are we going to do in that case?  Move the meeting?

Remember, this is a document that is supposed to be about venue
_selection_ (its short title actually is "Venue Selection").  I think
it is reasonable to have an Important criterion that health and safety
be taken into account.  I think Mary's observations about spores and
water-damaged ceiling tiles are likely to be helpful for future site
visits, and I think the site visitors would probably make a remark if
the hotel smelled strongly of tobacco smoke.  But lists of specific
prohibitions (particularly Mandatory ones) need to come with some kind
of directive to action.  For this to be really Mandatory, then, we
need the requirement to be contractual language.  If we're going to
insist on a no-smoking-and-you-must-rectify term in our contract with
the hotels, we're going to have yet another term that makes us hard to
deal with and makes our prices go up.  The same is true of other
environmental contaminants.

I am sure we could, if we wanted, put such terms in a contract.  It's
just what price we're willing to pay for it.  So, how much is this
worth to people?  Would people pay US$500 a night for a hotel that
would write that contract?  If no, then it would be useful (to me,
with my IAOC hat on) to know how much people _would_ pay for it.
Otherwise, we're going to get best-efforts agreements, and these
criteria can't be Mandatory and can't effectively be policed.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan