On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:53:57AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: > FWIW a fair bit of what you mention below can be found under the 1st > link of the (slightly dated) iaoc meetings page: > https://iaoc.ietf.org/ietf-meetings.html Thanks, Lou I assume you are referring to page 2 of https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-Meeting-Requirement-Overview-2016.pdf anything else re. subject of this thread ? Cheers Toerless > Lou > > > On 12/18/2017 10:59 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > > --On Monday, December 18, 2017 10:30 -0500 John R Levine > > <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>>> It wouldn't help us get rooms for IETF-101, but it would > >>>> help with IAOC oversight (who oversees the overseers?) to > >>>> know how many rooms were in the block. For example, knowing > >>>> that only 75 rooms were blocked out and that 74 of them are > >>>> reserved for staff and I* might raise questions. This where > >>>> some transparency would help. > >>> Indeed. Or at least it can't hurt. > >> As I understand it, you're saying that you suspect the problem > >> is that the IAOC, which is all volunteers you know, is holding > >> back unneeded rooms for the people who run the meetings? If > >> that's not what you mean, what do you mean? > > John, Let me take a try at answering the question. > > > > Over the years, we have moved very gradually from a rather small > > number of people for whom the Secretariat reserved and held > > rooms in the HQ / meeting hotel to what some people believe is > > an ever-expanding list. I can remember a time when, if rooms > > in the main hotel were scarce, most of all of the Secretariat > > stayed somewhere else and just about the only special > > reservations were for members of the IAB and IESG and maybe not > > all of them. While I'm willing to assume that every addition > > makes sense, I think it would be healthier if the community > > understood how far the umbrella spreads and, insofar as it > > becomes a constraint on getting work done, that the fundamental > > decisions about criteria be subject to community review. For > > example, do IAOC members now get reserved rooms? Can that be > > justified in the same way that the IAB and IESG originally were, > > i.e., improving accessibility to those people, freeing up extra > > space for very small meetings with them, and making the meetings > > run better. How about senior (or other?) ISOC or ICANN or other > > guest people or organizations staff or representatives? > > > > The question of how many of those rooms there are and who they > > go to is important for another reason: once upon a time, most of > > all of those rooms were comp-ed by the hotel in return for > > bringing the meeting in, just as meeting rooms are. Has the > > number of comp-ed rooms become part of meeting location and > > hotel locations? Or, if not, is IASA paying for some of them > > and how, if at all, does that affect the bottom line and the > > meeting fees paid by "ordinary" participants? > > > > Note that this interacts with a different concern. The number > > of reserved small meeting rooms is definitely on the increase > > relative to where it was 15 years ago (IIR, if I recall, at that > > time it was one each for the IAB and IESG, a work area for the > > Secretariat, and, in season, one for the Nomcom). If the number > > of those rooms that are required has expanded to the point that > > it is a constraint on hotel choices and negotiations, whether it > > is a source of upward pressure on registration fees or not, then > > I think the community is entitled to knowledge about, and > > probably even control over how the tradeoffs should be > > considered. > > > > I note that none of this is about contracts with particular > > hotels or the like, only how much visibility fundamental IASA > > policy decisions have the community and whether the community is > > given enough information to provide effective input into those > > decisions. > > > > john > > > > -- --- tte@xxxxxxxxx