Fred Baker wrote:
well, it's gotta be the IAOC's fault then. Tell you what, you can cut my IAOC salary in half as a penalty.
Nah. You deserve every penny you get. In fact, let's double your salary, for taking all this crap from the peanut gallery.
The IAOC is looking at the coming budget, and about to discuss it with the ISOC Board.
...
That is in part what Ray has been doing in getting hotel contracts two years out, and in making a deal with the Hilton company about repeat business at Hiltons. But maybe we're willing to pay extra for "no construction".
Getting reduced rates has always been a goal and the benefits of signing early were discussed perhaps 15 years ago. So we certainly don't want to reverse any of that fine, recent improvement.
Your last sentence is interesting, however, in the idea that we would have to pay extra in order to ensure that the hotel does not make it impossible for us to do our work. While that wasn't your wording, I think it is a realistic implication.
I keep thinking that folks who rent space are renting the right to use it, and that a landlord who makes the space unusable is at fault. One does not need to pay extra for the right; the rent already is the payment. And I think the IETF meeting situation is comparable to renting space, albeit with a more interesting payment model.
We still seem to be constantly wandering into hotels for the first time, and somehow it's hard to believe that that doesn't cost the IETF a premium, if only in staff time learning the new place, especially for the net ops folk. I even wonder whether repeating among a small set of venues would not also lead to some relationship building between the different staffs, thereby making everything go a lot more smoothly?
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf