On Aug 28, 2010, at 12:27 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Hi Olaf, > > What I'm saying is that this has been done wrong, and probably the only way > to avoid it is to: > > 1) Not accepting a venue which is not "directly" connected (and CONFIRMED by > the secretariat) by an international airport, served by at least 3 different > alliances (example, OneWorld, Star, Skyteam). It will be acceptable a train > or bus from the airport to the venue/hotels, let's say less than one hour > trip, AND with no "line" changes. > > Or > > 2) If the venue don't met that requirement, then the secretariat should take > the responsibility to double check that the different recommended > transportation suggestions are valid and perform as announced by the > provider (example, the railway company). Jordi: I don't think you meant to say this, but here's how I read it. Coming from Santa Barbara to almost anywhere I want to go, I take a commuter flight to a major airport such as LAX, SFO, or DEN. From there, whether I am going to Munich, Maastricht, or Barcelona, I take a flight to a major European hub such as Paris, Amsterdam, London, Frankfurt, or Munich. From there, I take a flight to Prague, Dublin, or Barcelona, or perhaps take a train to Maastricht. Going the other direction, I fly SBA->SFO->KIX, and take a train to Hiroshima (what I actually did involved two weeks in China before and another with in Japan after; let's not go there). To Beijing, SBA->SFO->PEK. To Sydney or Melbourne, SBA->SFO->SYD, SBA->LAX->MEL, or SBA->LAX->SYD->MEL. Hiroshima, Barcelona, and Maastricht are equally "secondary" to me. I take a commuter flight, I take a flight between hubs, and I do something else (flight or train, and the train's a lot more comfortable than flying), and I'm there. If I'm on three flights or two and a train, to me that's pretty normal. Leaves me wondering what the fuss is about. I've attached the www.hipmunk.com report on "how to get from Barcelona to Beijing". If you're arguing against Maastricht on the basis of it being secondary, do you really want to go there? > Maastricht didn't met any of both choices. > > I don't think the responsibility of the IAOC/secretariat finish by providing > the venue and hotels. It must be a GOOD venue. Otherwise we may choose as > venue ANY city lost in a far corner of any country, right ? And that should > include the most obvious info about how to reach the venue (especially if is > not next to an international airport). If somebody take the risk of choosing > an alternative path, of course, that's a different history. I agree they need to be good venues. Was Hiroshima a good venue, by your analysis? It seemed very good to me. So did Maastricht, although we had to fix the Internet access in the conference hotel. My only complaint there, to be honest, is that I used Swisscom in the Crowne Plaza and several other hotels while in Europe, and with the exception of the NH Airport Brussels, they all had loss rates on the order of 1% or greater for the duration that I was measuring. I thought Maastricht was a great city.
Attachment:
Hipmunk: Barcelona, ES to Beijing, CN.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf