John,
I couldn't agree with you more, on each of your points.
One additional point, we should add meeting planning spending to your
transparency list. (do we really want IETF/ISOC meeting money spent on
anything unrelated, e.g., "vacation" planning?)
Lou
On 8/22/2014 1:39 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Friday, August 22, 2014 11:47 -0400 Ray Pelletier
> <rpelletier@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> All;
>>
>> When we were first contracting with the Hilton for IETF 91 the
>> Hilton was asked about the possibility of offering some
>> special deals at their other properties in Hawaii for IETFers
>> before and after the scheduled meeting.
>> ...
> Ray,
>
> I'm confident that the meeting committee isn't choosing
> locations based on where its members would like to vacation and
> hope that confidence is justified. As others have commented, a
> Waikiki Beach location fairly screams "boggle" to corporate
> travel departments who are sensitive to such things, that (by
> reputations and in my experience from several years ago) it is
> an expensive area to do much of anything, and that Honolulu is
> an expensive place to get to for many of us who attend IETF
> without institutional sponsorship. Given that, I find the idea
> that you and/or the IAOC would include a discussion of packaging
> that IETF meeting with vacation packages insensitive and
> troubling.
>
> Perhaps no one actually cares. But, if any corporate or
> organizational travel departments get access to your note and
> respond, e.g., "we thought this was a boggle, you said it
> wasn't, this proves that the IETF gives significant
> consideration to vacation opportunities in selecting locations
> and negotiating contracts" and pushes back on attendance, it may
> be time for the IAOC to carefully (and transparently) review how
> selections are made and who is making them.
>
> john
>
>
>