Hi Ole,
Are you saying that the hotel refused to allocate more than 300 rooms to a meeting like the ietf?
Wouldn't this be a significant parameter in the choice of the next hotels?
BR
Daniele
Sent from a mobile device, please forgive spelling mistakes and short replies
-------- Messaggio originale --------
Da: Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@xxxxxx>
Data: 16/08/2015 19:28 (GMT+01:00)
A: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Ali C. Begen" <acbegen@xxxxxxxxx>, Jon Hudson <jon.hudson@xxxxxxxxx>, wgchairs@xxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx, Jared Mauch <jared@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, irsg@xxxxxxxx, recentattendees@xxxxxxxx
Oggetto: Re: R: [BOFChairs] IETF 94 - Registration and Hotel Information - no availablity
Daniele,
I can assure you that the room block size at the main hotel is as
large as the IETF could possible obtain, but there are several
overflow hotels nearby (all within easy walking distance) that
will be reservable through the Japan Travel Bureau (JTB) as soon
as possible.
Stay tuned for more information from the IAD and others.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415-550-9433
Cell: +1 415-370-4628
UK Cell: +44 7805 977889
docomo: (090) 3337-9311
Web: protocoljournal.org
E-mail: olejacobsen@xxxxxx
E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Skype: organdemo
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
> If my understanding is correct it was previously stated that the
> reservation was for 300 rooms...which is nothing compared to the
> number of attendees we had at the last meetings.
>
> If I correctly recall the numbers of rooms booked used to be 600
> (variable during the week with a peak of 600 aounr the middle of the
> week). With that amount of rooms we've been running into the same
> problem in the last (at least) couple of years. It should have been
> increased of at least 300 unit, not decreased IMHO.
>
> Maybe for the next meeting we might make a poll asking how many
> people are planning to stay at the primary hotel and book, say, 80%
> of the rooms?
>
> BR
> Daniele
>
>
>
> Sent from a mobile device, please forgive spelling mistakes and short replies
>
>