Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, if the enemy is renovations, or even huge and noisy construction projects across the street or in adjacent buildings, a model of going repeatedly to the same venues and building relationships would not help us get more than better-quality sympathy. Hotel behavior is not a coin-toss, even with the same hotel. If there have been no renovation projects for several years in a row, that actually increases the odds that there will be one next time, rather than assuring that there will not be. The point is that if IETF meetings are potentially repeat business for a hotel, that gives the hotel an otherwise-absent strong incentive to do such a good job that we'll want to hold another IETF meeting there. From the hotel's perspective, making sure that we don't get inconvenienced by renovations or other avoidable disruptions would be one aspect of that. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUGhttp://SIUG.ch ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
--On Thursday, 29 November, 2007 11:16 +0100 Norbert Bollow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... The point is that if IETF meetings are potentially repeat business for a hotel, that gives the hotel an otherwise-absent strong incentive to do such a good job that we'll want to hold another IETF meeting there. From the hotel's perspective, making sure that we don't get inconvenienced by renovations or other avoidable disruptions would be one aspect of that. But, Norbert, we are _not_ potentially repeat business for some of the hotels we have been in if they are charging anything close to their _normal_ conference (not rack or corporate rates). At least I hope they aren't, because I hope we never see an IETF meeting held at a hotel with room rates in the IETF block well over the USD 300 or EUR 300 range. And by the way, to review something that has been said in earlier versions of this discussion, even when we get an excellent room rate at a super-premium hotel, it may not necessarily be a good deal because eating or drinking at such a hotel tends to be at their normal super-premium rate. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
John C Klensin wrote: But a hotel has a special incentive to offer us (or any other candidate for holding meetings or taking up a lot of rooms) very low rates (measured in the differential from their average rack rate or even their standard corporate rate) when, for some reason or another, they expect a John, Actually I believe I did understand the original point. I was attempting to counter it, by pointing out that any renter, at any rate, has reasonable expectations that a facility will be usable. When a hotel makes choices that would render the facility unusuable for us, they have violated the core of the agreement, no matter the nature of the problem that renders the facility unusable. I do not see the mere fact of any renovations as making a place unusable. However, failure to honor reservations, running jackhammers next to meeting rooms, and the like, do. So, again, I think there is a big difference between things that alter degrees of convenience or, perhaps, environmental aesthetics, versus things that make the facility unusable. I see this is a simple issue that is not very subtle. If a hotel cannot guarantee reasonable usability, then no rate is low enough. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
--On Thursday, 29 November, 2007 08:42 -0500 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I do not see the mere fact of any renovations as making a place unusable. However, failure to honor reservations, running jackhammers next to meeting rooms, and the like, do. So, again, I think there is a big difference between things that alter degrees of convenience or, perhaps, environmental aesthetics, versus things that make the facility unusable. I see this is a simple issue that is not very subtle. If a hotel cannot guarantee reasonable usability, then no rate is low enough. In a backwards sort of way, I think we agree... we are just looking at this from different perspectives. If a hotel offers us a cheap rate but doesn't bother to tell us about the jackhammers, even if we ask, then there is some very bad behavior going on. And, if they offer us a sufficiently cheap rate relative to their norms, I believe we should be questioning the deal very carefully. If a hotel says well, we are remodeling, but we are sure it won't inconvenience you in any way, and here is this super-cheap rate, I think we need to view the rate with great suspicion and treat the promise the way we treat commitments from the average snake-oil salesman, especially because we know from experience that on-site hotel staff (even ones we know well) often have little control over construction contractors who have their own supervisors, contracts, deadlines, etc. Where we may differ is that I think we have enough experience at this point to know that, if there is going to be significant construction/ renovation going on, guarantees of reasonable usability are meaningless in practice and your no rate is low enough principle applies. If they make a guarantee and then can't keep it after we arrive, or even behave in particularly egregious ways (of which canceling reservations would certainly be an instance), all we can do then is talk about penalties. And, while penalties may help us feel good, may help the budget, and the meeting fees a year out, they don't do a thing to help us recover lost productivity or lost time. So I am suggesting that, unless as part of the deal, Ray and the IAOC are able to actually get the construction plans, form their own opinions about the likelihood of disruption, and, to the extent needed, and verify and get commitments from the construction firm about non-interference, it is time we start considering doing some renovations to be a hard negative on a particular facility, regardless of what rates they are offering us. And part of that is that, if a hotel guarantees us no renovation work, the penalties for breaking _that_ guarantee should be painful and set in whether we are actually disrupted or not, just to make sure it is clear that behavior is unacceptable and non-negotiable. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
-Original Message- From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Actually, I'm interested in a more basic thing. We usually put a large load on a hotel. Why don't our contracts insist that the hotel not be undergoing significant renovation during the meeting. One of the problems is that the venue agreements are made pretty far in advance, and hotels make renovation decisons on shorter timeframes. So you may make a venue selection 1 1/2 years before a meeting, and find out 1 year before the meeting of a renovation. Jason ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
For the record, Ray was aware of this renovation, and tells us that there will be renovation ongoing in Philadelphia as well. Ray can comment more, but the renovation in Philly for IETF 71 (discovered after the venue decision I believe) is of some of the common areas in the bar and does not involve renovations to the guest rooms. I will also note that in Philadelphia, there are a plethora of hotels to choose from within a block or two walk from the venue as well (in addition to good subway systems, etc.). Jason ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
On 11/29/07 2:00 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote: ...[T]he renovation in Philly for IETF 71 (discovered after the venue decision I believe) is of... the bar. Well, there goes any hope of getting anything useful done in Philly. :) /a ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
They will have a special bar area setup for attendees. There are also several other bars inside the hotel building (including a sports bar) and probably 10 - 15 bars within a 1 to 2 block radius. I believe the liquid consumption needs of attendees will be easily accomodated. :-) We'll be posting at http://ietf71.comcast.net a guide to all of the local bars and the distances from the hotel lobby in the coming weeks and months before IETF 71. Jason -Original Message- From: Adam Roach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:11 PM To: Livingood, Jason Cc: Fred Baker; Cullen Jennings; Pete Resnick; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out On 11/29/07 2:00 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote: ...[T]he renovation in Philly for IETF 71 (discovered after the venue decision I believe) is of... the bar. Well, there goes any hope of getting anything useful done in Philly. :) /a ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
--On Tuesday, 27 November, 2007 17:53 -0500 Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Preliminary information is that there will shuttle service between the Renaissance, Marriott and Westin. Extent of impact on rooms about 50. I am told we are the only guests at the Westin. I will report back with additional info. Ray, Given Fred Baker's and Dave Crocker's comments, what I'm about to say may be unnecessary, but maybe it is worth saying anyway. I suspect that we are getting attractive offers from otherwise very expensive hotels precisely because they are renovating and many groups have learned to not touch a hotel that is under construction. While some facilities are more gracious about trying to handle the problems than others and mass bumpings are new to me, we've had noise, dust, an absence of hot water, and other sources of disruption... rarely a really good experience when we are sharing a hotel with a major construction project. While I don't know if it has ever happened with the IETF, I've certainly dealt with facilities which, in meeting disruption situations, have taken an attitude of well, we told you the circumstances and you accepted a great rate as a consequence, why do you think you are entitled to anything else. Of course, that doesn't help the people who are bumped: while you may have known about the renovations, I don't recall any warnings on the IETF announcement of the hotel that said if you decide to stay in the conference hotel, be aware that they are renovating, which may subject you to the usual renovation disruptions. We also were not warned about the Palmer House, and the comment in Fred's note about Philly came as a surprise to me at least. While I approve of aggressive penalty clauses, we need to keep in mind that, if something is disruptive enough to reduce our ability to get work done, the total costs to us are related to the time and salary costs of everyone who is thus inconvenienced and who has to find another way and more time to get the work done. Those costs can easily exceed the total that the hotel expected to collect under the contract, so a percentage price reduction penalty (or the equivalent) is actually more of a gesture than something that helps us recover our costs. It seems to me that we need to avoid doing this in the future, even if that means an immediate review of facility decisions about IETF 71. You presumably could not modify or cancel that contract based on the misbehavior of the Westin Bayshore, but there might be grounds on the basis of the disruptions and noise in Chicago. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
John C Klensin wrote: You presumably could not modify or cancel that contract based on the misbehavior of the Westin Bayshore, but there might be grounds on the basis of the disruptions and noise in Chicago. Disrupted meetings and dislocated participants for two meetings. Given that the pattern involves a single chain and given that it clearly is a pattern, I believe you are quite right that we have a strong basis requiring a change in any existing hotel arrangements for future meetings. It's one thing to say that there is renovation. It is quite another to say that the productivity of the week is affected. There is a difference between ugly or irritating, versus disruptive. The latter can't possibly be acceptable. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
And neither is the Marriott in Philadelphia. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Dave Crocker wrote: Dave Crocker wrote: Given that the pattern involves a single chain oops. didn't connect with the fact that the Westin isn't part of Hilton. no wonder they don't mind screwing us... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
The problems in Chicago were not just caused by the renovations, it was the discourteous and pig headed attitude of the management to them. On two days they attempted to close the main throughfare from the third floor to the lobby so that they could seat a private party of four for lunch. I pointed out to the management that this was exceptionally inconvenient and that I didn't think that people would be very willing to tolerate this a second day running. The point is though that a competent management would have realized that it is simply not acceptable to inconvenience 500 people by catering a party in a corridor. Perhaps a word to the Vancouver hotel management might pre-empt similar behavior. From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 27/11/2007 5:15 PM To: Yaakov Stein Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out At Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:47:13 +0200, Yaakov Stein wrote: The Westin Bayshore just called me to tell me that they are undergoing renovations, and so unfortunately they are kicking me out of the room that I had reserved in early September. That's uh, not good. This actually raises another issue as well: in Chicago a number of sessions were badly disrupted by renovation noise. It's probably worth acting now to ensure that that isn't a risk in YVR. -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
Ole Jacobsen wrote: And neither is the Marriott in Philadelphia. It's still Hilton's fault. Gotta be. Otherwise, the only common factor is Ray and the rest of IETF's administrative management... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Nov 28, 2007, at 11:05 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: the only common factor is Ray and the rest of IETF's administrative management... well, it's gotta be the IAOC's fault then. Tell you what, you can cut my IAOC salary in half as a penalty. Otherwise, we would just have to decide that maybe we get good deals from hotels under renovation, and decide how badly cutting the cost of attendance is to us. The IAOC is looking at the coming budget, and about to discuss it with the ISOC Board. We plan to take a serious look at how to reduce it during the coming year, such as looking at IP-based telephone or conferencing services for ourselves, the IESG, and the IAB (not a huge budget chunk, but not zero either), and asking what else can be cut. 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. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFHTj+GbjEdbHIsm0MRAonsAKC54jKiVVO4xHSj8QyyTEIjzaXGZQCcDumT wiprDOtsUL+6tejZLk8yABM= =jyz6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
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 mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
Yeah - but who wants to go to Minneapolis one more time /duckcover Bill Dave Crocker wrote: 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/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
--On Wednesday, 28 November, 2007 23:45 -0500 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... 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. ... Dave, It is just a guess, but I think something else is going on, and it was that, rather than pay extra to get acceptable accommodations, that was implied in my earlier comments. As I understand the hotel selection process, we are getting prices from the hotels for some sort of package. Those prices --effectively bids when Ray and the secretariat contact more than one hotel in the same city or even hotels in different cities on the same schedule-- are for a time and place, not some rate that they would give us at any time we asked. Assuming that the hotels are rational --and few would be in business for long if they weren't-- there are supply and demand aspects of those bids, assuming we are quoted a penny under nominal rack rates. Were we to consider Phoenix, we would almost certainly get a better rate in July than in February. I assume that we generally do better in Minneapolis in March than we might do in June. But a hotel has a special incentive to offer us (or any other candidate for holding meetings or taking up a lot of rooms) very low rates (measured in the differential from their average rack rate or even their standard corporate rate) when, for some reason or another, they expect a lower-than-usual occupancy rate, especially from people who are booking only a short time in advance and who, in today's world of information availability about facilities, can have access before booking to information like under construction, full of noise and dust. To take a not-very-random example for illustration purposes, the average nominal rack rates at the Parker House are astronomical and, when the hotel is not disrupted, my impression is that they usually get them (or their standard corporate rate equivalent). Our conference rate, while still fairly high compared to what we would have spent at a nominally less exotic facility, was a huge discount from those rates. Assuming that they didn't decide to lose money on the IETF, my guess as to why we saw those very low rates at that particular time was precisely because they knew they would be under construction, that many of their facilities would be closed, and that the place would be at high risk of being generally disrupted. Even the seemingly marginal stuff figures into this: while I agree with Phillip that it was bad judgment to try to squeeze a private party into a high-traffic corridor, if all of their facilities had been available, they would have had less incentive to do so and, probably, more alternate circulation paths available. So I fear that we are getting some differentially low prices because the hotels know that their facilities won't be up to their normal standards. And I think we are finding that it is unwise to take such deals, even (or especially) if the differential is very large. FWIW, if the enemy is renovations, or even huge and noisy construction projects across the street or in adjacent buildings, a model of going repeatedly to the same venues and building relationships would not help us get more than better-quality sympathy. Hotel behavior is not a coin-toss, even with the same hotel. If there have been no renovation projects for several years in a row, that actually increases the odds that there will be one next time, rather than assuring that there will not be. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
On 11/27/07 at 9:47 PM +0200, Yaakov Stein wrote: The Westin Bayshore just called me to tell me that they are undergoing renovations, and so unfortunately they are kicking me out of the room that I had reserved in early September. They offered to put me up in the Renaissance 5 blocks away... Same here. I then asked the hotel if they were going to provide a shuttle service, and they said that they would have to consider it. They said to me that there would be. Ray, I think you need to comment on this. Part of the secretariat booking hotels is to avoid nonsense like this. Why are they not kicking out other guests instead of us? pr -- Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
At Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:47:13 +0200, Yaakov Stein wrote: The Westin Bayshore just called me to tell me that they are undergoing renovations, and so unfortunately they are kicking me out of the room that I had reserved in early September. That's uh, not good. This actually raises another issue as well: in Chicago a number of sessions were badly disrupted by renovation noise. It's probably worth acting now to ensure that that isn't a risk in YVR. -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
As someone else who made reservations in early September and was told today that they are canceling my reservation, I would be very interested to know how many people have been affected by this last minute change. Although I am perhaps more comfortable than Yaakov with walking outdoors in sub-freezing temperatures, I made my reservations at the Bayshore to ensure that early-morning (or late-night) travel would not be required. Furthermore, I am generally quite unhappy with having my confirmed reservation revoked with only 5 days notice; especially when the reason for revocation is 'renovations', an event that can hardly be considered unforeseeable. I will be certainly be writing letters to the Bayshore and their parent company to express my displeasure, and I hope that the IETF will remember this week's events the next time it considers holding a meeting at a Starwood Hotel. - Matt Lepinski ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
On Nov 27, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: Ray, I think you need to comment on this. Part of the secretariat booking hotels is to avoid nonsense like this. Why are they not kicking out other guests instead of us? Actually, I'm interested in a more basic thing. We usually put a large load on a hotel. Why don't our contracts insist that the hotel not be undergoing significant renovation during the meeting. We been at several hotels that are doing renovation during IETF and I don't think it was ever without problems. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
++; On Nov 27, 2007, at 11:47 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote: The Westin Bayshore just called me to tell me that they are undergoing renovations, and so unfortunately they are kicking me out of the room that I had reserved in early September. They offered to put me up in the Renaissance 5 blocks away, but, when asked, told me that the night time temperatures are close to, or below freezing. I am sure that many of you consider zero Celsius a reasonable temperature, but I don't. The hotel would not tell me how many people were being relocated in this fashion, but apparently there are many. I made travel plans based on a confirmation from the hotel that the IETF selected as venue, and less than a week before arrival the hotel throws me out with no recourse. I then asked the hotel if they were going to provide a shuttle service, and they said that they would have to consider it. I think that the IETF should insist on this as minimal compensation for those who are being downgraded in this fashion. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
Cullen Jennings wrote: On Nov 27, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: Ray, I think you need to comment on this. Part of the secretariat booking hotels is to avoid nonsense like this. Why are they not kicking out other guests instead of us? Actually, I'm interested in a more basic thing. We usually put a large load on a hotel. Why don't our contracts insist that the hotel not be undergoing significant renovation during the meeting. We been at several hotels that are doing renovation during IETF and I don't think it was ever without problems. Here's the punchline (disclaimer I don't know anything about this particular hotel contract)... You get a discount if you're willing to be inconvenienced... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
Preliminary information is that there will shuttle service between the Renaissance, Marriott and Westin. Extent of impact on rooms about 50. I am told we are the only guests at the Westin. I will report back with additional info. Ray IAD Pete Resnick wrote: On 11/27/07 at 9:47 PM +0200, Yaakov Stein wrote: The Westin Bayshore just called me to tell me that they are undergoing renovations, and so unfortunately they are kicking me out of the room that I had reserved in early September. They offered to put me up in the Renaissance 5 blocks away... Same here. I then asked the hotel if they were going to provide a shuttle service, and they said that they would have to consider it. They said to me that there would be. Ray, I think you need to comment on this. Part of the secretariat booking hotels is to avoid nonsense like this. Why are they not kicking out other guests instead of us? pr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
Fair enough, and I realize that I am not privy to how the negotiations go and how much of a discount one gets. I don't want to know about how the contracts negotiation happens but I do of course want to have a productive IETF meeting with as few late surprises as possible. On Nov 27, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: Cullen Jennings wrote: On Nov 27, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: Ray, I think you need to comment on this. Part of the secretariat booking hotels is to avoid nonsense like this. Why are they not kicking out other guests instead of us? Actually, I'm interested in a more basic thing. We usually put a large load on a hotel. Why don't our contracts insist that the hotel not be undergoing significant renovation during the meeting. We been at several hotels that are doing renovation during IETF and I don't think it was ever without problems. Here's the punchline (disclaimer I don't know anything about this particular hotel contract)... You get a discount if you're willing to be inconvenienced... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
+1 support. if so, shuttle should be provided. - Original Message - From: Yaakov Stein To: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:47 AM Subject: Westin Bayshore throwing us out The Westin Bayshore just called me to tell me that they are undergoing renovations, and so unfortunately they are kicking me out of the room that I had reserved in early September. They offered to put me up in the Renaissance 5 blocks away, but, when asked, told me that the night time temperatures are close to, or below freezing. I am sure that many of you consider zero Celsius a reasonable temperature, but I don't. The hotel would not tell me how many people were being relocated in this fashion, but apparently there are many. I made travel plans based on a confirmation from the hotel that the IETF selected as venue, and less than a week before arrival the hotel throws me out with no recourse. I then asked the hotel if they were going to provide a shuttle service, and they said that they would have to consider it. I think that the IETF should insist on this as minimal compensation for those who are being downgraded in this fashion. Y(J)S -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
They offered to put me up in the Renaissance 5 blocks away, The ICANN meeting a couple of years ago was at the Bayshore, and I stayed at the Renaissance because the Bayshore was full. When we were there, the weather was unseasonably severe, with temperatures plunging below 0 C and snow blown into drifts as much as 1 or 2 cm deep.* The locals were all moaning and groaning about it. I agree that bumping people at the last minute is really tacky, although probably out of their control if a contractor tore up the rooms they were planning to rent you and hasn't finished. But even if there's a shuttle, you'll walk because it's much faster than waiting around for the bus and it's a nice walk along the Coal Harbour waterfront. Dining suggestions: there's a very elegant looking place called Lift on the seawall in front of the Bayshore; skip it other than perhaps for a drink, overpriced food and dreadful service. Cardero's, a large noisy place in the marina you pass between the two hotels was better than you'd expect. R's, John * - on closer inspection it was mostly road salt, of which they used a vast amount. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
I will be certainly be writing letters to the Bayshore and their parent company to express my displeasure, and I hope that the IETF will remember this week's events the next time it considers holding a meeting at a Starwood Hotel. and while we are at it... We will need cloak room service (at least for those who require a heavy coat to walk 5 blocks in freezing temperatures). It assume that the Westin will waive the charge this service usually entails. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
Cullen Jennings wrote: We been at several hotels that are doing renovation during IETF and I don't think it was ever without problems. Humans do not process negatives all that well -- and that's a cognitive issue, not just emotional -- particularly when doubled. Besides, it's always good to state things positively. In other words: It has always been with problems. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
Fred Baker wrote: For the record, Ray was aware of this renovation, and tells us that there will be renovation ongoing in Philadelphia as well. Since a purpose of the long-term contract was stability, this is proving to be a rather counter-productive pattern. As for construction noise, it is certainly true that IETF working group sessions often are not as productive as we would like, but really, we don't need help from the hotel to make sure that's the outcome... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
Yaakov, I could be wrong but I was under the impression that the IETF was already providing a shuttle service as the Renaissance was the designated overflow hotel. Stuart Goldman Alcatel-Lucent [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 602 493 8438 P please save a tree by not printing this e-mail. From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 12:47 PM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Westin Bayshore throwing us out The Westin Bayshore just called me to tell me that they are undergoing renovations, and so unfortunately they are kicking me out of the room that I had reserved in early September. They offered to put me up in the Renaissance 5 blocks away, but, when asked, told me that the night time temperatures are close to, or below freezing. I am sure that many of you consider zero Celsius a reasonable temperature, but I don't. The hotel would not tell me how many people were being relocated in this fashion, but apparently there are many. I made travel plans based on a confirmation from the hotel that the IETF selected as venue, and less than a week before arrival the hotel throws me out with no recourse. I then asked the hotel if they were going to provide a shuttle service, and they said that they would have to consider it. I think that the IETF should insist on this as minimal compensation for those who are being downgraded in this fashion. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
Well, I don't think that shuttle bus is an enough compromise. It is not flexible in scheduling and does not work late night. YAO wrote: +1 support. if so, shuttle should be provided. - Original Message - *From:* Yaakov Stein mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* ietf@ietf.org mailto:ietf@ietf.org *Sent:* Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:47 AM *Subject:* Westin Bayshore throwing us out The Westin Bayshore just called me to tell me that they are undergoing renovations, and so unfortunately they are kicking me out of the room that I had reserved in early September. They offered to put me up in the Renaissance 5 blocks away, but, when asked, told me that the night time temperatures are close to, or below freezing. I am sure that many of you consider zero Celsius a reasonable temperature, but I don't. The hotel would not tell me how many people were being relocated in this fashion, but apparently there are many. I made travel plans based on a confirmation from the hotel that the IETF selected as venue, and less than a week before arrival the hotel throws me out with no recourse. I then asked the hotel if they were going to provide a shuttle service, and they said that they would have to consider it. I think that the IETF should insist on this as minimal compensation for those who are being downgraded in this fashion. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Westin Bayshore throwing us out
Yangwoo Ko wrote: Well, I don't think that shuttle bus is an enough compromise. It is not flexible in scheduling and does not work late night. It occurs to me that a competent hotel normally comps the cost of the alternate room, if you arrive with a reservation and they fail to satisfy it. And that does not count the added inconvenience of having to commute to the conference hotel. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
