Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] [Bulk] Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Email Ballot +++ Definition of hotel stay


Since we have gotten into the business of collecting a penalty for not staying at the meting hotel under the pretense of protecting ourselves against room block penalties...

Have we allocated/dedicated those surcharge fees to a "trust fund" that is held in reserve against any room block penalties that we may incur? I would assert that (a) we should do so and (b) if that fund doesn't net zero then we should be adjusting the surcharge such that it does over the long term.

Anything else makes the surcharge just another excuse for us to extract more money from our constituents. If we are going to do that honestly, then it should be (voted as) an increase in the registration fee.

Best regards,


On 6/10/10 7:22 AM, John Hawkins wrote:
I vote "approve"

My reasoning is: I don't want us to incur significant penalties for
not meeting our contracted room commitments due to one-night guests
"blocking" the hotel from multi-night guests. Which is the issue as I
understand it (an un-intended consequence of the one-night rule).

  Some further reactions to the email threads:

I am pleased to see the EC clarifying its intent, and further defining
what constitutes a stay. It keeps me, as Treasurer, out of the
dog-house -- if we do lose money in this way, it was justified by an
explicit EC decision (this one), not my interpretation of a loosely
worded one (the one in July).

Matt makes a good, common-sense argument (I made it myself in the
early days). Unfortunately, that's not the way hotels (at least in NA)
work, so the argument is not with us, but with the Hyatt's out there.
In a sense, they regard the conference facilities as "loss leaders"
for the guest rooms. If they have a full conference facility and empty
guest rooms, they lose money (so we're told). Having said that, the
experience in Singapore is leading me to believe that in non-NA
settings, you get hit both ways: pricey rooms, AND exorbitant
conference facility charges. So be careful what you ask for.

As Geoff says, we can deal with this later "for real," but I think
we'll end up right back where we are, having to require either an
up-front fee or a>1 night stay at the property. Note that I *hate*
having to enforce this sort of rule. It's a pain, lots of work for the
staff, and quite a bit like being a debt-collector - never a popular
guy. The issues of multi-guest rooms, local attendees, and what to do
for people attending a single day also are a pain and will need to be
dealt with in terms of policy. SO if people have better ideas, let's
keep the conversation going.

My sincere apologies for missing the interim session call yesterday...
now you know why you need a new Treasurer! :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 4:26 PM
Subject: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Email Ballot +++ Definition of hotel

Dear 802 EC members

Paul Nikolich has delegated the conduct of the EC electronic ballot on
the following motion to me.

In the November 2009 meeting, the EC passed the following motion:

"IEEE-802 Registration Procedures will be effective for the March 2010
meeting as follows:
1)  We will advance the registration cut-off date by 2-weeks, from
17-days prior to the meeting, to 31-days prior to the meeting.
2)  We will advance the hotel room-block cut-off by the same amount so
that both occur on the same date.
3)  We will adjust the Session Registration Fees to the following
    o Web Early-Registration Fee (prior to 31-day cut-off) will remain
at $400.US
    o Web Registration Fee (after the Early-Registration cut-off but at
least 7-days before start of session (Monday) will now be $500.US
   o Late Web or On-site Registration (less than 7-days before or during

the session) will now be $600.US
4)  A $300.US surcharge will be added to the registration fee for those
attendees not booking and staying in the 802-contracted hotel.  Proof of

hotel stay will be required to prevent the surcharge."

The purpose of this motion is to clarify what a "hotel stay" means.
Accordingly, the motion is as follows:

Moved that "In order to avoid paying the $300 US surcharge on the
registration, a hotel stay is defined as at least two nights booking and

staying in the 802 contracted hotel.  The effect of voting no on this
motion is that a hotel stay is defined as at least one night booking and

staying in the 802 contracted hotel." Effective beginning with the
November 2010 meeting.

Move: Gilb
Seconded: Law

Note that although I am moving the motion for the purpose of resolving
this issue, I will be voting no as I believe that the original motion is

clear that only a single night is required by the wording.

Start of ballot: Wednesday 5 October 2010 Close of ballot: Friday 15
October, 11:59PM AOE

Early close: As required in subclause 'Electronic Balloting' of
the IEEE project 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Operations
Manual, this is notice that, to ensure the release is provided in a
timely manner, this ballot may close early once sufficient responses are

received to clearly decide a matter.

James Gilb

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.