--On Sunday, August 28, 2022 20:07 -0400 John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It appears that John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> said: >> I had, indeed, completely forgotten that meeting and the >> associated policies. Not a good reason to tolerate/ >> encourage another very restrictive cancellation policy >> however. I do continue to accept Jay's assertion that this >> it the best that can be done, especially if we were locked >> into the hotel due to deferring the earlier schedule. > It's not just that. If we want to meet in London, there is > only one hotel that has the facilities and meeting rooms we > need. It's a running joke that every time any of us go to > London, it's to the Metropole if it's a big meeting, or the > Park Plaza if it is a small one. When ICANN met in London in > 2014, I presume you remember where it was. > > Our staff has been making hotel arrangments for our meetings > for a long time and I think most of us agree they have been > doing a good job. Does anyone really imagine they said, oh, > heck, nobody cares about the cancellation policy If there is any such person, it certainly is not me. Lest it sound like I'm contradicting myself even more than usual, what I'm trying to say, restated a bit in the light of your comment above, is closer to: If there were a European meeting being planned for, say, four years hence and it looked like, if we went to London, there was only one possible hotel and some of its policies, including, e.g., cancellation, were pathological relative to the ones we need to give people a reasonable level of flexibility, that would be a rather good reason to say "not London". And if the situation were the same as the one we encountered for IETF 83 in Paris, it might be a good argument for "not Paris". Lots of other cities in Europe to consider. best, john
