Re: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
That isn't accurate. The fee for the meeting facility isn't tied to the
size of the room block but Buzz said at the closing plenary that we had
to have at least a 400 room block for the hotel to be interested in
booking our meeting. If we don't make that block, the meeting facility
fee wouldn't go up but we would pay a penalty fee for the unbooked
Since the Marriott Park Rome would have rooms for 400 to 600 of us, from
600 to 1100 of us (depending on whether you think the Rome meeting will
be down in attendance to 1200 or up near our peak attendance) that would
have to be at other hotels. From our earlier figures on attendance at
nonNA interims, I expect we would have a normal attendance level. This
hotel is 1 to 2 miles from the nearest public transit and about that far
from the nearest other hotel - most other hotels are much farther. And
that 1 to 2 miles is through an area fairly deserted at night so even
those of us who are normally willing to take that walk might hesitate.
With 600-1100 to move around, "a coach" wouldn't do it to shuttle those
booked at other hotels. That is about 15 to 28 coach loads of people to
get from their hotels to the Marriot Park for their morning meetings.
I would be fine with booking a meeting in a conference center or
University campus outside NA in a spot well served by public transit
(like the 802.1 and 802.3 joint interim at ITU in Geneva or the IETF in
Vienna), but I don't think we should be getting into the transit
business ourselves on this scale. If we did, given the other costs in
Rome, costs for bus shuttles might be pretty steep - even compared to
room rate differences.
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of J Lemon
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
There is no reason why we would have to reserve a large room block for
the Rome venue. The meeting facility is not tied to rooms. So there
would not be any room penalties. And since people would be free to book
a room at any hotel they wish, it would be far less costly to attend
than what was claimed in the survey. If other hotels are not within an
easy walking distance, we could hire a coach to shuttle people between
various hotels and the meeting location. I assume this would cost far
less than the difference in room rates. There are many ways that we
could make Rome work.
But, if the EC gives up on Rome without trying creative ways to make it
work, then I hate to see us settle for Vancouver. I don't believe that
if Vancouver is still available at this date that other locations that
could fit us, including in Hawaii, would not also be available.
On 11/26/2007 1:27 PM, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
> While I agree that Vancouver is not a logical alternative to Rome (it
> doesn't meet our nNA objectives), I must admit that based on
> that has come to light recently (which I think should have been FAR
> broadly and prominently brought to the EC's attention MUCH sooner, and
> likely would have resulted in retaining other nNA venues for further
> consideration, rather than dropping them from consideration), I am
> concerned that holding fast on Rome will result in a MAJOR financial
> disaster for 802.
> 1) Attendance may drop DRAMATICALLY, significantly impacting both
> fees and room committments.
> 2) Even if 1) does not happen, or the drop is modest, at the quoted
> rates, I doubt that more than a small fraction of our room block will
> booked at the quoted rates, resulting in significant penalties (which
> recall correctly, could also negatively impact our costs for F&B and
> As far as Hawaii goes, I don't think the Waikaloa Village, where the
> wireless groups have held 2 interims (and plan to return for a 3rd)
> enough rooms or meeting space to hold an 802 plenary and there is no
> "neighbor" property within a reasonable distance to support a split
> (Besides, at this date, Hawaiian properties that could hold us may
> already be booked for March 2009.)
> As much as I dislike it, I am becoming inclined (but not *quite* ready
> commit) to supporting Vancouver, because I don't think we can afford
> risk that the Rome venue poses and I am not optimistic that a viable
> alternative could be found and committed before our option on
> Should I do so, it will be with the greatest of reluctance and should
> way be construed as a change of direction from my firm view that we
> (and should be able to have) nNA plenaries, as so many other large
> routinely do.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of J Lemon
>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 3:17 PM
>> To: 802 EC
>> Subject: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
>> If you are inclined to vote against Rome, think before you vote for
>> Vancouver. Vancouver is not the logical alternative to Rome.
>> If we can't
>> get a European or Asian venue this time, then the next best
>> venue would
>> at least be non-NA. I know that people are afraid of Hawaii being
>> as a vacation trip. But I also know that it is very popular among our
>> participants coming from Asia, and it is definitely non-NA.
>> Sure, it is
>> still the US, but does anyone other than Canadians (hi Mike)
>> really view
>> Canada as being a non-American venue? Vancouver does little
>> if anything
>> to ease the Americancentric appearance, and does nothing to alleviate
>> the travel burden of those from other continents. Rome may not be the
>> best choice, but neither is Vancouver. Until a venue is proposed that
>> addresses at least some of the problems we were trying to solve, I
>> you to reject switching to a random venue of convenience.
>> John Lemon
>> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.