Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13, 2009Plenary Session for your review
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> Rigsbee, Everett O
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 3:56 PM
> To: Pat Thaler; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13,
> 2009Plenary Session for your review
> Hi Pat, Good questions:
> 1. No the price was, of course, in Euros so continued dollar
> devaluation will only make it more expensive. The price in Euros was
> 170 single, 185 double + 10% VAT. All other prices were also in Euros
> so they will follow the same course. We may need to put an adjustment
> on the registration fee to compensate for further deterioration.
> 2. Yes, They have 40 good sized meeting rooms which should
> easily allow
> for up to 1500 attendees and we can always use a partial
> theater setting
> in the rear to cover an exceptional overflow. The price
> quoted was for
> all of the meeting space so there would be no extra charge for meeting
> space for additional attendees. That's good news because extra
> attendees will have a positive budget impact to perhaps offset some
> devaluation losses. But we don't want to count on those
> extra attendees
> or we wind up losing money and incurring penalties to boot. There is
> plenty of hotel rooms in the nearby vicinity so we can grab
> some more at
> 4 months out if a poll of the membership at the preceding plenary
> indicates significantly higher than expected attendance. It's much,
> much easier to go up in attendance than to go down, where the
> penalties can be incredibly severe as we have seen.
> 3. We would only be contracting for a low percentage of
> needed rooms at
> that rate (~51%) and we are only guaranteeing to use 70% of
> that number.
> Further we can adjust those numbers at interim review periods as we
> approach the dates of the session to protect against major attendee
> level changes. So again I feel confident that we are doing
> all that we
> can to reduce our exposure to losses. We may also consider having an
> increased registration fee for those not staying at the 802-contracted
> hotel since they are indirectly not paying their fair share
> of the cost
> for the meeting spaces. Even a $200 surcharge would provide a
> significant disincentive to try to beat the system and we
> would provide a refund if we make or exceed our expected numbers.
I'm not sure why we would provide a refund on a "penalty" for not booking
a room in our room block ... As you said, people who do so are "indirectly"
(I would argue it's more "directly" than "indirectly) not paying their fair
share of the cost of the meeting space (whether we meet expected numbers or
exceed them), so why would we give them money back?
> So we have several options to adjust the parameters of the session to
> ensure we come in where we need to be budget-wise but it is already
> clear that it will be 2 to 3 times more expensive than your average NA
> session as Bob Heile has predicted. If that is too much then
> we need to
> revisit the fundamental question: "Is meeting budget more important
> than meeting location ???" :-)
Other groups (OMA, 3GPP, 3GPP2, etc.) regularly meet in nNA venues. They
(and their memberships) don't seem to find it problematic at all.
If it's more expensive, (as we know it will be in terms of meeting cost)
that's simply a cost of doing business in terms of meeting our policy goal
of being a truly international SDO (this is also a goal of the SA, not just
Meeting in NA exclusively because "it's cheaper" is, in my view, a cop-out -
and an inaccurate characterization.
The meeting registration fee may be less, but our EU and Asian colleagues
end up carrying all of the burden of the extra travel time, expense, and
and tear on personnel." That is simply not fair. (and would not be fair,
if the meeting fees were equal regardless of venue)
It also fuels the perceptions of some, and the ability of those inclined to
assert, that we (and by extension, the IEEE-SA) are "a US-centric" body, not
Personally, I believe that of our 3 plenaries, one should be in NA, one in
and one in Asia every year. That would be fair.
(Please note that I say this as one who pays his travel expenses for these
meetings out of his own pocket ... I am not reimbursed by clients. In other
words, cheaper meeting costs (registration, travel, time) would "flow
to my bottom line," but I'm willing to incur the extra expense in order to
have us "be what we *should* be."
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.