Subject: FW: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:07:43 +1000

Hi,

I'm forwarding this message to the general IETF mailing list, because I
think we need a good discussion on this and the confirmation from the
secretariat/IAOC that this work will be done CORRECTLY NEXT TIME.

The fact is that if we don't make sure that a venue has good connections
then should not be candidate to be an IETF venue.

I'm not referring to plane vs train. I'm fine with train if the information
provided is accurate. Some times, for people in Europe, train can be more
convenient than planes, but this is only true if the train system is
reliable in general (of course, a strike, crash or anything like that is
something that we can't predict/avoid).

Maastricht proved that the information provided by the train web sites was
totally FALSE.

This is something that the secretariat/IAOC SHOULD verify before accepting a
venue.

I hope that we learn the lesson.

Regards,
Jordi

------ Forwarded Message
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:57:19 +0200
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re:  Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat
07:09

- Don¹t believe at all in the info about the trains that they provide in the
web site.

- Don¹t believe at all in the info the employees in the train stations
provide

I will suggest to relay only in the people that drive the trains itself,
according to my today experience.

I was flying out from Brussels to Madrid.

I decided just in case to take an earlier train that actually needed.

I was in the station 40 minutes before the train should leave. It was a
direct express train from Maastricht to Brussels North and then only one
change to the airport.

Guess what ... IT WAS NOT TRUE. I needed to change the train 4 times. In the
first change in Liege for the info about the right itinerary, and after,
asked for a complain form proving them that the web site was WRONG. They
told me it is outdated and they know it for ages ...

Well the worst is that the new itinerary was also INCORRECT ! I only
discovered it asking to the train driver who provided me the right itinerary
to all the way thru in order to be able to be in the airport 36 minutes
before my train departure.

I was not lucky, and the check-in was already closed and was not able to get
my bags thru (no problem with me because I had already my boarding pass), so
needed to get my bags directly into the plane as a very special favor
because I'm Platinum level in Iberia, throwing away some of the liquids in
the security control, and when arrived to Madrid, discovered that my bag was
lost in the way (a direct flight !).

It seems that I will get it tomorrow, as local staff forgot to put it on the
plane, even if I run across all the airport with the bag !

Of course, I'm going to claim for injuries to the train system, even if I
need to spend money in lawyers, but definitively, we should boycott any new
meeting that need to use the Belgium/Netherlands train system.

I'm sorry about this but, even if I was quite the last days with all the
noise about the trains, and I was thinking that people was exaggerating, now
I realize that the people was completely right, THEY HAVE THE WORST TRAIN
SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.

So please, IAOC/secretariat. For any NEXT MEETING make sure that the
official web sites for transport are 9999% ACCURATE, 100% is not enough.

Regards,
Jordi

From: Gregory Lebovitz <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:44:19 -0700
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [78attendees] Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09

Hey all,
I'm heading to the Brussels airport on Saturday morning, early. I've got a
07:09 train from Maastricht city center, with two transfers, that gets me
into Bruxelles-Nat-Aero at 09:10, in time for my 11:00 flight.

Anyone from NH want to share a cab to the train station, and make the
journey together?

-- 
----
IETF related email from
Gregory M. Lebovitz
Juniper Networks

_______________________________________________
78attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/78attendees

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.

_______________________________________________
78attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/78attendees

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.

------ End of Forwarded Message

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:38:23 +0200

Jordi,

> This is something that the secretariat/IAOC SHOULD verify before accepting a

The Dutch railway site (www.ns.nl) is quite accurate.  It lists the trains,
arrival time, departure time and location where you have to change trains.
In the 6 years or so that I've been a regular train user, I still have to
come across a case where the website listed a train that the NS did not
intend to run.

Of course, the system is as good as its input data.  If there is a
technical problem or accident along a path, the website will notify
you about that as soon as the data is entered.  In practice, this means
some chaos and confusion the first 10-30 minutes after the incident,
then decent warning messages appear.

That said, please explain to me how the IAOC can verify that a train
sometime in the future, will not run according to schedule.

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I confirm today what I denied yesterday.            Anonymous Politician.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:30:35 +1000

Hi Henk,

In a previous discussion about this it was clear that was not the Dutch
railway, but the Belgium one ... However, it was recommended to use the fast
train from/to Brussels, as it was faster than to Amsterdam ... Clearly was
not the case.

The secretariat does an on site visit. It is simple to add one more point
and question about the trains if this is going to be used by most of the
participants (as it was in this case) and actually there is not a good
international local airport.

WE can't recommend train if we don't "sample" it.

And you know, in this case was quite obvious. If you ask in the train
station, as I did (unfortunately too late), they will tell you:

"Oh NO, don't believe at all at the information on the web site, it has not
been updated for ages !".

I think we could have avoided and we SHOULD avoid this mess to the
participants.

Regards,
Jordi

> From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
> Organization: RIPE NCC
> Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:38:23 +0200
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: FW: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to
> Brussels-Nat-Aero, Sat 07:09
> 
> Jordi,
> 
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 01:04:35 -0700 (PDT)

Jordi,

I have no idea how you managed to have such a bad experience. I 
travelled on German, Dutch and Belgian railways to/from Maastricht and 
all the info I got in advance was 100% accurate, right down to what
platform the trains departed from.

I did hear that there was some confusion about whether or not express
trains ran on the weekends from Brussels, but beyond that I am not
aware of the total chaos you describe.

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-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:27:58 +1000

Hi Ole,

That's what I understood from the web site, and that's why I not complained
with the difficulties on Sunday, but I was departing on Friday, which is a
week-day, unless I've got it wrong :-)

What I'm saying was the response from the train ticketing people in Liege if
I recall correctly. Also they give me the incorrect information in the
office about the faster way to reach the airport ... Then I was lucky to ask
again in the tracks, while waiting the train and one of the employees that
check for the people having a ticket or not (inside the train), provided me
a better/faster route.

Even if your experience has been different, I'm not making it. I've a
written complain and already a response from Belgium trains. They ask their
excuses, and confirm that it has not been updated (the info in the web site)
for years, and that it is not definitively accurate.

Regards,
Jordi

> From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 01:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
> To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero,
> Sat 07:09
> 
> Jordi,
>

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:08:30 +0200

Hi Jordi,

> train from/to Brussels, as it was faster than to Amsterdam ... Clearly was

It is a train starting in the Netherlands, the schedule published by the
NS on their website can then be considered authoritative.

> international local airport.

I don't remember if this question was asked or not, some of this was discussed
before I joined the IAOC.  But even if the question was asked, I don't
quite see how this would have solved your problem.  3 of the IAOC members
had travelled with Dutch trains beforehand and their experience was that
the information on the website was 100% accurate.

> been updated for ages !".

This is strange, as both the NS (Dutch) and NMBS (Belgium) railways
recommend to check their websites to plan a trip.   And again, I have
yet to come across a case where the website different from the
intention of the railway company to run a train.

Henk

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:01:32 +1000

Hi Henk,

This is the web site that was referred by the host web site for the fast
speed train:

http://www.maastrichtbrusselexpress.nl/?id=26

And still has the wrong information about the timing (the site has not been
updated since the IETF, despite the written complain done to the train
management and their confirmation that was not updated).

Regards,
Jordi

> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:08:30 +0200
> To: <[email-masked]>

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:53:31 -0700

> management and their confirmation that was not updated).

Perhaps when you're done fixing the Belgian rail system you can fix the
government as well...

---

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:06:14 +0200

Jordi,

You are suggesting that the secretariat or the IAOC does research into the correctness of information that is linked from the host site, correct?

If so: The host site is _not_ the responsibility of the IAOC or the secretariat, it is the responsibility of the host. And although I would agree that there should be some expectation that the host does its best to provide accurate venue information one cannot expect the host to actually _test_ whether sites that (in their eyes) are supposed to give authoritative information are actually correct.

Suppose that this link was not provided by the host.

You would probably have googled for "Maastricht Brussels Train"? That query provides me with the mentioned site as first hit.  Would you have complained to google that the first hit for that query contained false information?

But to the underlying point: I think the responsibility of the IAOC and secretariat stops with providing accurate hotel and venue location information. How to get from home to the venue is _your own_ responsibility by which you might be aided through links provided by the hosts and hints and tips from your colleagues on the various IETF lists. I would agree that it is fair to expect that folk providing those hints and tips do so diligently but that is not the responsibility of the IAOC or Secretariat.

On purely personal title,

--Olaf

________________________________________________________ 

Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
                                       Science Park 140, 
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/               1098 XG Amsterdam

---

From: "Jiankang YAO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:43:22 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel Jaeggli" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-Aero,Sat 07:09

> Perhaps when you're done fixing the Belgian rail system you can fix the

very interesting point.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:27:33 +1000

Hi Olaf,

What I'm saying is that this has been done wrong, and probably the only way
to avoid it is to:

1) Not accepting a venue which is not "directly" connected (and CONFIRMED by
the secretariat) by an international airport, served by at least 3 different
alliances (example, OneWorld, Star, Skyteam). It will be acceptable a train
or bus from the airport to the venue/hotels, let's say less than one hour
trip, AND with no "line" changes.

Or

2) If the venue don't met that requirement, then the secretariat should take
the responsibility to double check that the different recommended
transportation suggestions are valid and perform as announced by the
provider (example, the railway company).

Maastricht didn't met any of both choices.

I don't think the responsibility of the IAOC/secretariat finish by providing
the venue and hotels. It must be a GOOD venue. Otherwise we may choose as
venue ANY city lost in a far corner of any country, right ? And that should
include the most obvious info about how to reach the venue (especially if is
not next to an international airport). If somebody take the risk of choosing
an alternative path, of course, that's a different history.

I don't agree either that the secretariat should not make a minimum
supervision of the host provided info. I know it is impossible not being
local to monitor all, but in a case where we don't have an international
airport, the secretariat should make sure that the trains have the right
information, definitively !

Regards,
Jordi

> From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:06:14 +0200
> You are suggesting that the secretariat or the IAOC does research into the
> correctness of information that is linked from the host site, correct?
> 
> If so: The host site is _not_ the responsibility of the IAOC or the
> secretariat, it is the responsibility of the host. And although I would agree
> that there should be some expectation that the host does its best to provide
> accurate venue information one cannot expect the host to actually _test_
> whether sites that (in their eyes) are supposed to give authoritative
> information are actually correct.
> 
> You would probably have googled for "Maastricht Brussels Train"? That query
> provides me with the mentioned site as first hit.  Would you have complained
> to google that the first hit for that query contained false information?
> 
> But to the underlying point: I think the responsibility of the IAOC and
> secretariat stops with providing accurate hotel and venue location
> information. How to get from home to the venue is _your own_ responsibility by
> which you might be aided through links provided by the hosts and hints and
> tips from your colleagues on the various IETF lists. I would agree that it is
> fair to expect that folk providing those hints and tips do so diligently but
> that is not the responsibility of the IAOC or Secretariat.
> 
>

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:54:11 +0300

Hi Jordi, 
Hi all, 

I have not seen an IETF meeting where people have not complained about
the layout of the venue, how to get there, the city itself, the
proximity to some nearby countries, the weather, the hotel, the number
of offered hotels, the high crime rate, etc. etc. 

The place that makes 95% of the typical IETF meetings participants happy
does not even exist. 

Maybe it would be useful to highlight the positive aspects of traveling
instead. Maastricht is an interesting city and you saw lots of your IETF
friends again. 

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:58:50 -0700

> provider (example, the railway company).

Jordi:

I don't think you meant to say this, but here's how I read it.

Coming from Santa Barbara to almost anywhere I want to go, I take a commuter flight to a major airport such as LAX, SFO, or DEN. From there, whether I am going to Munich, Maastricht, or Barcelona, I take a flight to a major European hub such as Paris, Amsterdam, London, Frankfurt, or Munich. From there, I take a flight to Prague, Dublin, or Barcelona, or perhaps take a train to Maastricht.

Going the other direction, I fly SBA->SFO->KIX, and take a train to Hiroshima (what I actually did involved two weeks in China before and another with in Japan after; let's not go there). To Beijing, SBA->SFO->PEK. To Sydney or Melbourne, SBA->SFO->SYD, SBA->LAX->MEL, or SBA->LAX->SYD->MEL.

Hiroshima, Barcelona, and Maastricht are equally "secondary" to me. I take a commuter flight, I take a flight between hubs, and I do something else (flight or train, and the train's a lot more comfortable than flying), and I'm there. If I'm on three flights or two and a train, to me that's pretty normal. Leaves me wondering what the fuss is about.

I've attached the www.hipmunk.com report on "how to get from Barcelona to Beijing".

If you're arguing against Maastricht on the basis of it being secondary, do you really want to go there?

> an alternative path, of course, that's a different history.

I agree they need to be good venues. Was Hiroshima a good venue, by your analysis? It seemed very good to me. So did Maastricht, although we had to fix the Internet access in the conference hotel. My only complaint there, to be honest, is that I used Swisscom in the Crowne Plaza and several other hotels while in Europe, and with the exception of the NH Airport Brussels, they all had loss rates on the order of 1% or greater for the duration that I was measuring. I thought Maastricht was a great city.

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:13:11 +0200

OK Jordi, you fell victim to a marketing site.
I've got some news for you: Not every site on the Web has accurate information.

Let me explain how that works.  Something new comes along (say, a new train service) and marketing material (a web site) is generated.  Some budget is set aside.  The web site looks nice and flashy and correctly describes the state at the time the budget was there.

The service turns out to be less successful than anticipated.  Some changes are made.  The website is not updated (out of lack of budget; out of shame; I don't know).  The train personnel even knows that but probably thought: not a big problem, that's just a marketing site.  Those who really need to know will go to the operator.

An IETF analogy would be IPv6 and security: When IPv6 was first marketed, its "mandatory security" was an important (the only at the time) selling point.  Lots of marketing of this feature, which made it turn into the incorrect marketing statement "IPv6 more secure".  IPv6 turns out to be less successful than planned and a lot of that security is never deployed.  Still, after more than 10 years and a lot of IPv4 IPsec deploument, most IPv6 marketing sites sell "IPv6 more secure".  This kind outdated information is hard to get rid of.  Not a problem, because those who really need to know will talk to experts.

Should the host site have vetted the information on the marketing site before linking to it?  Probably.  On the other hand, the site does contain useful information.  Still, it is quite obvious that this is not an operator site so nobody in their right mind would be relying on the letter of it for current information.

The ugly part of this conversation is that you map this little failure of the hosts and then your big failure to properly vet information on the web to a failure of the site selection process or the IAOC.  No, that's not it.

General recommendation on the latter point: less drama, please.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:21:30 -0400

+1

And thanks to the IAOC with putting up with the abuse every single time.

--Richard

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 13:28:58 -0400

> trip, AND with no "line" changes.

What you save in transportation at the tail end can be totally destroyed
by hotel and dining costs, and the IETF has to pay more for meeting
facilities.

swb

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:29:25 -0500

Speaking from personal experience and having been attending IETF
meetings since 1998, I have never encountered the number of issues at
a meeting location I did at Maastricht.   The only other venue that
came close was Dublin and that was due to not having access to food
that I could eat at the venue during lunch.  I can imagine the number
of complaints folks would see if there was no food for lunch for
anyone at the venue (and no cookies at the breaks).   These are the
only times I have *ever* raised a single complaint on the mailing
lists about venues. I had no issues at all with other venues that I
couldn't manage on my own in these regards.  So, statistically,  I
have personally been pleased with the choice of venues for 2/36
meetings (i.e., 95+% of the venues at which I have attended meetings)
and fully agree there is no perfect choice.

I travel alone alot for leisure and business and Maastricht has been
the only venue that I have had any concerns at all - starting with an
overly friendly local on the last train to Maastricht on the Saturday
nite (the last one btw) I arrived. As I said in a previous post,  I
realize these concerns only apply to a minority, but I do think they
are valid concerns for the IAOC to consider.  If they choose not to,
then I believe that re-enforces the impression that IETF does not
encourage participation from a diverse set of individuals.

So, if all you guys (and it's been all guys from what I've seen) would
just consider how you would feel if you either had access to very
little food (think 4 days without a real meal and subsisting on
illegally imported nuts and dried fruit for 4 days)  or if your
wife/daughters/girlfriends  were having to travel alone on a train
late at night or navigate a city they don't know alone at nite, then
perhaps you'll have a modicum of insight into some of these concerns.
[BTW, the information on safety on the host site were certainly not
relevant to my personal concerns].

As I said in prior posts, I think Maastricht would be a lovely city
for a vacation/holiday, but it is a very poor choice for a business
meeting.  And, actually the scattered nature of the hotels made if far
more difficult to interact with IETF friends than it is when the
hotels are all close to the venue and there are fewer choices.

Regards,
Mary.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:57:28 -0500

The savings really depends upon the city.  After Maastricht, I went to
Paris and the hotel for me there was 25 Euros a nite less than in
Maastricht and I would have also saved several hundred dollars in
airfare as well as alot of time in transit.  So, while it is possible
that IETF may have to pay more for meeting facilities,  I contend that
the net expenses for the average participant would be fairly close,
even if the meeting fee were higher.

Certainly, my meal expenses overall would be higher in larger and
easier to reach cities, but that's more because I could actually find
more to eat than that the overall costs are significantly higher.

Mary.

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:56:28 -0700

>  hotels are all close to the venue and there are fewer choices.

Absolutely.  A city can be wonderful and charming (and excellent for 
personal travel) but also a poor choice for an IETF.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
More than any time in history mankind faces a crossroads.  One path
leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction.
Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
                                                         --Woody Allen

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:11:47 -0500

Fred,

The fuss is all about the fact that the trains between Hiroshima or a
flight leg from Frankfurt to Prague, for example can't be compared to
the train experience to/from Maastricht in terms of convenience in
scheduling, ease in purchasing ticketss, quality of transport and
comfort (in my experience).  Information about the trains to Hiroshima
was provided well ahead of time and was extremely accurate and
informative (down to the detail of not changing at the central Tokyo
station).  The trains to Hiroshima were far superior in quality and
comfort than those to Maastricht.  The train I took to Maastricht was
decrepit - two cars that were filthy, with the filthiest restroom I
have EVER seen in my entire life and I've seen alot having traveled in
a station wagon all around the US as a child.  And, unfortunately, I
had no choice but to use the facilities on the train since the public
restroom at the lovely Liege station was closed at 10pm at nite. I
barely caught the last train to Maastricht due to flight delays and I
got very lucky in that there was a cab dropping someone at the train
station in Maastricht when I arrived, otherwise I would have had to
walk to my hotel as the train station was entirely shutdown when I
arrived.

So, AT MOST, I would consider Maastricht a Tertiary location as I
would the venue in Dublin and as I would a conference center located
15 minutes from my house despite it being 15 minutes from the 3rd
busiest international airport in the world because there are no
restaurants nearby and folks that stayed at other hotels would need a
car to get there.

In my opinion Hiroshima was a very satisfactory venue - the trains
were clean, easy to use and the meeting venue was located in a city
center (near all the hotels) with plenty of nearby choices for finding
food.  These are all very, very basic and simple criteria to meet,
unfortunately, Maastricht did not satisfy any of them.

Regards.
Mary.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 06:57:05 +1000

That's it !

Regards,
Jordi

> From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:11:47 -0500
> To: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>, IETF Discussion <[email-masked]>
>> Hiroshima, Barcelona, and Maastricht are equally "secondary" to me. I take a
>> commuter flight, I take a flight between hubs, and I do something else
>> (flight or train, and the train's a lot more comfortable than flying), and
>> I'm there. If I'm on three flights or two and a train, to me that's pretty
>> normal. Leaves me wondering what the fuss is about.
>> 
>> I agree they need to be good venues. Was Hiroshima a good venue, by your
>> analysis? It seemed very good to me. So did Maastricht, although we had to
>> fix the Internet access in the conference hotel. My only complaint there, to
>> be honest, is that I used Swisscom in the Crowne Plaza and several other
>> hotels while in Europe, and with the exception of the NH Airport Brussels,
>> they all had loss rates on the order of 1% or greater for the duration that I
>> was measuring. I thought Maastricht was a great city.
>> 
>> 
>>

---

From: "Dan Harkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:41:58 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Hannes,

  Maastricht is definitely an interesting city and I'm glad I can say
I've been there (Aachen was cool too!). But the venue there sucked. It
was in the middle of a cultural dead zone (which says something because
Maastricht has lots to offer) and the hotels were all scattered around
town. My hotel was great and well situated from a city-center perspective
(I would consider staying there if I went back as a tourist) but to get
to the venue required a 20 minute hike or a bus. Coordination among people
to go out to dinner or meet up after dinner was a pain-in-the-ass because
everyone scattered out in a 5km radius to freshen-up/stow-bags/whatever.
And then there's the multi-stop cab ride back to everyone's dispersed
hotels, not very conducive to extra-IETF activities which are helped by
close hotel proximity.

  Yea, I did see my fellow IETFers but that holds true anywhere (if you
hold an IETF in city X then there will be lots of IETFers in city X) so
that is hardly a "positive aspect" about the particular IETF venue.

  Don't take it as a negative about the city. It's the venue in the city
and the displacement of hotels that matter. For instance, I've been to
San Diego, California, USA for different meetings and some were great and
others really sucked because the venue was not convenient and/or in a
cultural wasteland or to get to/from there was a pain-in-the-ass. Same
city, different conference, totally different experience.

  Two hops plus a train or 3 hops or whatever may be a "negative" but
to me that's a one-off (actually a two-off since I have to leave too)
and I really don't care too much about that. More important, to me, is
the overhead required for day-to-day activities during the IETF-- effort
to get to the venue from my hotel, how easy is it to find food during the
day, what's required to coordinate extra-IETF meetings with fellow IETFers
in the city, that kinda stuff.

  regards,

  Dan.

And yes, I did see alot of my IETF friends again.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 06:55:29 +0700

> by hotel and dining costs, and the IETF has to pay more for meeting

Speaking of which, I hope to be the first to note that paying $192 for a
room in Beijing in November is highway robbery...

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 08:31:24 +0700

Sounds to me as if you both just need a good travel agent (& possibly a
little anti-whining therapy ;-).

Hope this helps.

 ~gwz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 3:57 AM
> To: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: [78attendees] WARNING !!! Re: Maastricht to Brussels-Nat-
> Aero, Sat 07:09
> 
> That's it !
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> I've attached the www.hipmunk.com report on "how to get from
> Barcelona to
> >> Beijing".
> >>
> >> If you're arguing against Maastricht on the basis of it being
> secondary, do
> >> you really want to go there?
> >>
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be
> aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
> of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
>

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:22:40 +0300

> room in Beijing in November is highway robbery...

What Glen said.  Also, the secondary hotel is not much better at $147.  The 15% service charge increase these to $220 and $169 respectively, which is way beyond the budget my company gives me for all locations in the world besides NYC.

If this was some place in the US, I could easily find a cheap hotel chain nearby (like I did in Anaheim). In Europe, it's a little more difficult, but still doable (thanks, Google Earth). In China, I have no idea where to even look. Sure, I can find a list of cheap hotels in Beijing, but I have no idea where they are in relation to the meeting venue, or whether the staff would speak English. The warning to have your destination written down in Chinese, because the taxi drivers don't speak English doesn't inspire confidence either.

For most business meetings, all this doesn't matter. You either have a host that helps you out, or your Chinese sales office helps you out. For an IETF meeting, we don't really have either of these.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:36:30 -0500

> If this was some place in the US, I could easily find a cheap hotel chain 
> nearby (like I did in Anaheim). In Europe, it's a little more difficult, 
> but still doable (thanks, Google Earth). In China, I have no idea where to 
> even look. Sure, I can find a list of cheap hotels in Beijing, but I have 
> no idea where they are in relation to the meeting venue, or whether the 
> staff would speak English. The warning to have your destination written 
> down in Chinese, because the taxi drivers don't speak English doesn't 
> inspire confidence either.
>
> For most business meetings, all this doesn't matter. You either have a 
> host that helps you out, or your Chinese sales office helps you out. For 
> an IETF meeting, we don't really have either of these.

Just as a data point, I was in Beijing for the PPSP workshop at the 
beginning of the summer, and was able to come up with google maps to/from my 
hotel, which was not the conference hotel, with enough Chinese that I could 
hand the maps to a cab driver.

I'm not a native, but my impression is that one of the things you're paying 
for at high-end hotels in China is staff that speaks English - but I've 
never stayed at a hotel in China where no one spoke English; it might be 
that just one or two people who spoke English, and everyone else would go 
fetch someone when I needed to answer a question.

The only real point of confusion for me was that I didn't know what terminal 
I was DEPARTING from, when exiting China. Both Star Alliance and OneWorld 
fly out of the massive Terminal 3 (read more about this at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_airport), but I didn't know that, and 
it took a little while at the hotel to figure out what to tell the cab 
driver.

I put the address given at the IETF website ("29 Zizhuyuan Road Beijing 
100089 China") into Google Maps, and then zoomed out - looks like we're in 
Haidian District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidian_District, "the 
university district"). If you include the district in your searches for 
hotels, that will at least keep you from being at the other end of 
Beijing...

Spencer

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:32:20 -0700 (PDT)

You said:

"For an IETF meeting, we don't really have either of these."

What? IETF 79 is hosted by Tsinghua University, CERNET and CNNIC. The 
website is still work in progress, but I would be very surprised if
they won't iinclude additional hotel info etc, if they don't, well
then we can certainly ask them too.

Food (outside of the major international hotels) is VERY cheap in 
Beijing, as in less than $20 for a 5-course meal for 2 including
beer. Beer in a grocery store is about 25 US cents per bottle.

Sounding a little better?

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:40:12 +0300

> then we can certainly ask them too.

Hopefully. But only the two hotels listed there have agreements and special rates for IETF attendants. In Maastricht there were a lot of hotels with special rates, so a lot were listed. I don't remember additional hotels being listed for Anaheim, Dublin or Chicago.

In all those locations this was not a problem, but I don't know how to spot a fleabag hotel in China. I believe I can do this in the US or Europe. 

> Sounding a little better?

Sounds great, but food and hotels are two separate expense report items, each with its own caps.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:50:11 -0700 (PDT)

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Yoav Nir wrote:
> 
> Hopefully. But only the two hotels listed there have agreements and 
> special rates for IETF attendants. In Maastricht there were a lot of 
> hotels with special rates, so a lot were listed.

Yeah, and people (as usual) complained that they could get much better 
rates outside the IETF block. Can't win that one.

> 
> In all those locations this was not a problem, but I don't know how 
> to spot a fleabag hotel in China. I believe I can do this in the US 
> or Europe.

Lonely Planet? Google? Ask someone who has been there? Wait a couple
of weeks and see what the host comes up with?

For the record, I tried to "hire" (volunteer) a local expert who 
has lived there for 18 years and speaks fluent Mandarin and English, 
but he was too busy with his day job, I am still hoping someone else 
will step up to the plate, but in any case, I am confident the host 
will help. Plus there are lots of people on this list who can assist, 
one of the reasons we are going to China is the increasing 
participation from China in the IETF.

James Seng, how do you read?

> items, each with its own caps.

Fair enough, but total cost is surely a factor for approval, no?

I know, I won't call you Shirley again :-)

Ole

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:31:01 +0700

> rates outside the IETF block. Can't win that one.

Perhaps not (there will always be a Motel 6 or some such down the road), but
that's not the question & definitely not the problem.  The question is why,
when the IETF has essentially promised to fill the Shangri-La Beijing for
the week, is it possible to book a room on the Shangri-La Web site right now
for the entire week of the meeting at less than the IETF rate?  The question
is why I was able to book a room @ the Hiroshima hotel for less than half
the IETF rate (admittedly w/o breakfast; was the "free" breakfast worth
~$80/day?).  The problem is that, eventually, the IETF will no longer be
able to fill the conference hotel because of the outrageous rates
"negotiated".  IEEE 802 has already run into this and has had to resort to
offering a meeting fee discount to those who spend at least one night in the
conference hotel.  The IEEE got into that position, I'm told, thanks to the
corruption of a meeting scheduler who locked them into a particular hotel
chain for many years in advance in return for valuable kickbacks.  What is
the IETF excuse?

> of weeks and see what the host comes up with?

Again, that's not the problem: in about an hour I was able to come up with
half a dozen 4*+ hotels as close or closer to the Shangri-La than the
official overflow hotel @ a maximum rate of $72/night (for a new, deluxe 2
bdrm apartment).  Why should I have to?  Again, we're basically promising to
fill the hotel for a week in November; that's worth money to the hotel but
we don't seem to be seeing any of it.  I've even been told that the IETF has
recently been paying for the use of meeting rooms @ the conference hotel.
Why?

.

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:11:36 +0300

On Aug 29, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:

> Again, that’s not the problem: in about an hour I was able to come up with half a dozen 4*+ hotels as close or closer to the Shangri-La than the official overflow hotel @ a maximum rate of $72/night (for a new, deluxe 2 bdrm apartment).  

Please share.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:19:21 +0700

Yoav Nir [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

> > Again, that's not the problem: in about an hour I was able to come up
> with half a dozen 4*+ hotels as close or closer to the Shangri-La than
> the official overflow hotel @ a maximum rate of $72/night (for a new,
> deluxe 2 bdrm apartment).
> 
> Please share.

Happy to do so, once my own reservation is confirmed ;-).  Hint: you can use
the combination of asiarooms.com for location & agoda.com for price...

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:25:18 +0300

> rates outside the IETF block. Can't win that one.

Perhaps not (there will always be a Motel 6 or some such down the road), but that’s not the question & definitely not the problem.  The question is why, when the IETF has essentially promised to fill the Shangri-La Beijing for the week, is it possible to book a room on the Shangri-La Web site right now for the entire week of the meeting at less than the IETF rate?

Really?  I have just tried that, and got the same 1300 RMB with or without the promotion code.

I can get cheaper rates for the week before or the week after, but entering 7th-12th of November gives me just the 1300 RMB rate.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:46:00 +0700

for the entire week of the meeting at less than the IETF rate?  

Really?  I have just tried that, and got the same 1300 RMB with or without
the promotion code.

Nevertheless, does it not put the lie to the idea that the IETF is getting a
deal (except maybe a bad one)?

I can get cheaper rates for the week before or the week after, but entering
7th-12th of November gives me just the 1300 RMB rate.

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:19:21 +0200

On 29/08/2010 06:22, Yoav Nir wrote:
>  The warning to have your destination written down in Chinese,
> because the taxi drivers don't speak English doesn't inspire confidence
> either.

I've never been to Beijing myself but friends who have told me that this
worked perfect for them: the taxidriver understood where they wanted
to go and they got there in more or less a straight line.

> For most business meetings, all this doesn't matter. You either have a host
> that helps you out, or your Chinese sales office helps you out. For an IETF
> meeting, we don't really have either of these. 

The host and the IETF do help: we provide 2 hotels and instructions on how
to get there.

The IETF (IAOC, local host, ...) is not a travel agent though, if you
have requirements outside what is provided, I suggest that you contact
a travel agent.

Henk

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 08:01:45 -0300

Yoav Nir wrote:

> If this was some place in the US, I could easily find a cheap hotel
> chain nearby (like I did in Anaheim). In Europe, it's a little more
> difficult, but still doable (thanks, Google Earth). In China, I have
> no idea where to even look. 

There are usual plenty of web sites for hostels, hotels, and the like.
They usually provide a map that indicates where exactly the hotel is.

If possible, you print the map in advance, and that helps quite a bit.

At Hiroshima a couple of us got on a cab, and it was impossible for us
to understand each other with the taxi driver. We asked him to stop, we
got of the cab, and drew with the pen on our map a circle to show him
where we wonted to go. -- No big deal.

At the airport (Tokyo) it was even funnier... I don't recall what I was
looking for, but we couldn't understand each other. However, a bit of
sign language and their patience and politeness were enough.

IMO, that's part of the fun of traveling...

> Sure, I can find a list of cheap hotels
> in Beijing, but I have no idea where they are in relation to the
> meeting venue, or whether the staff would speak English. 

At times I have done this: get there a day earlier or so, and you do all
your logistics. Find out how far if it's possible to walk from your
hotel to the meeting venue, find some place that's affordable to eat, etc.

> The warning
> to have your destination written down in Chinese, because the taxi
> drivers don't speak English doesn't inspire confidence either.

Why would you expect them to speak English? They are Chinese, and live
in China... hence they speak Chinese. :-)- I'd argue that in most of
Latin-America taxi drivers won't speak English, either.

Writing down whatever you want to communicate when you travel to a
country where you don't speak their language is usually the safe way to go.

Ah, and of course you also take some cash with you, and if possible, get
some Chinese currency before you actually get to China.

Having some idea about how much they should charge you for e.g. a taxi
from the airport to the center of the city is usually valuable
information, too. It wouldn't be surprised if the taxi driver tried to
charge you more than he should if he realized you have no idea of how
much things cost there (this could easily happen here in Argentina).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:47:29 -0700

> relevant to my personal concerns].

The incidence of rape in the netherlands is about 1/3 that of the city
in which you normally live in, the homocide rate is 1/15. certain kinds
of property crime are known to be pretty high. By most measures of
personal well-being the netherlands is one of the safest countries in
the world.

You stood at least an order of magnitude higher probability of being
accosted or assulted on the street when we were situated in the
tenderlion in san franciso, so either you're a fairly bad judge of
relative risk (most humans are) or the unfamilar has produced uncessary
concerns.

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:56:14 -0700

>  beer. Beer in a grocery store is about 25 US cents per bottle.

Are there any smoke-free restaurants near the site, or even anywhere 
in Beijing?

I don't care about beer, but breathing would be nice.  Being able to 
join people for meals might be nice, too, but I guess that will have 
to wait for a venue that isn't China or Prague.

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
A logician saves the life of a space alien and is rewarded with
an offer to answer any question.  After a thought he asks: What
is the best question to ask and the correct answer to it?  After
a brief panic the alien consults her computer and says: The best
question to ask is the one you just did and the correct answer
to it is the one I gave.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:29:01 -0500

Joel,

Thank you so much for your sensitivity - you've done a wonderful job
of re-enforcing the idea that IETF is a hostile environment for women.
 My guess is that you've never personally been in a situation where
you've been on a train late at nite and someone got overly friendly to
the point of making you feel very uncomfortable.  I guess since the
crime rate in Maastricht is lower than other places, it should not
have bothered me at all for someone to enquire about what hotel I was
staying at and whether I was alone that nite. Fortunately, despite
having been enroute for 24 hours, I still had the sense to say I had
colleagues waiting for me at the hotel. And, fortunately, there was a
cab dropping someone off since the train station was closed and there
was no concept of a taxi queue, so I didn't have to walk to my hotel
alone.   As I said, I travel by myself alot and have never had that
sort of problem when traveling to major cities since there are usually
alot of other people around and I can just blend with the crowd.

The reason I did not have this problem in San Francisco is because the
majority of people I would have dinner with in the evening were
staying in the same hotel. I stayed in the meeting hotel, as well,
thus did not have to return to a hotel somewhere else in case of late
meetings.  There are also a plethora of travel guide books that let
you know what areas are safest. The streets are also well populated at
nite - the safety in numbers theory and I NEVER had to walk down a
deserted street late at nite.  NYC is notorious for crime, yet I am
quite safe walking down the street at 9pm or so at nite since there
are alot of people around and I am very sensible in terms of being
aware of my surroundings.  However, I also know that it's not a good
idea for me to be wandering any deserted city street at nite by
myself.

My hometown is considered extremely safe and likely on the same levels
as Maastricht, since the incidence of rape is also 1/3 the U.S.
national average (google Flower Mound, TX).  Violent crime is 1/10th
the national average.  I'm actually an excellent judge of relative
risk.  Yet I certainly don't put myself in a situation where I am
alone at nite walking down a street that I'm not familiar with.  If I
have to travel into the city at nite, I never do so alone. You might
suggest I have a choice as to whether I attend IETF meetings, I
contend that the logistics of the meetings should ensure that folks
don't have to deal with these sorts of situations.  I do not think I
should have to inconvience someone else who has also had a very long
day to take an extra 20 minutes, so that they could walk me back to my
hotel.

I also did not have to travel on a train alone late at nite in San
Francisco. While, Glen suggested I needed a better travel agent,
AFAIK, travel agents have no control over thunderstorms in the U.S.
Midwest,  nor do they have any insight into whether someone will
encounter flight delays as a result of the weather. In hindsight of
course, I should have made plans to just spend the nite in Brussels
upon my arrival and then travel to Maastricht the next day. Or, to
just bail on my connection from London to Brussels and take the
Eurostar (and pay the exorbitant fee for a lst minute ticket and
losing my luggage since they would destroy it in Heathrow if I didn't
get on the place). [Don't even get into the discussion as to why I
checked my bag - that's another whole boatload of whining that has no
relevance to IETF meeting planning].  However, having traveled to many
places in Europe, including small towns, I've never had this sort of
problem, so was not able to anticipate such. Certainly, if I had to
travel to Maastricht again, I would be able to plan accordingly (and
would just pay the extra money and rent a car).

Best Regards,
Mary.

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> wife /daughters/girlfriends  were having to travel alone on a train

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:36:11 -0700

> of re-enforcing the idea that IETF is a hostile environment for women.

You're right, apparently I can't empathize and therefore I'm not going
to try. I would just note that I routinely trave to places where my
personal security is an issue, and I take steps accordinly.

> the point of making you feel very uncomfortable. 

I've had my wallet taken at knifepoint while getting off a train, in the
united states. I'm not sure that constitutes friendly.

the issue is awareness of an exposure to risk, we take them every day,
the risks you're exposed that result in threats to your person to
wandering alone in the netherlands are measurably lower than most other
venues we've visisted and I for one am quite tired of you complain about
how dangerous it was. You clearly felt uncomfortable in that location
onus is frankly on you to take control of your situation insure that
your travel situation is as you find necessary.

The secretariat, The IAD, the folks doing the survey, the host and your
fellow ietf travelers cannot apriori accomiate all of the possible
pathways that people might choose to take.

Myself, I booked into the conference hotel, and I coordinated my travel
plans with colleagues arriving the same day. Probably if you had done
the same you wouldn't have these complaints, you would have concluded
instead that it was long walk to the Albert Heniji and the shopping
districit in the old city...

Well sorry, in case you haven't noticed it's little hard to build a
modern confernece facility in the middle of a 2000 year city, We get to
work with what we have some time.

> I guess since the

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:03:34 -0500

I did book into a hotel with colleagues as I noted, but we all had
different schedules/dinner plans for the most part. I did not book
into the conference hotel because experience in Vienna led me to
decide that it was more convenient overall to be in the city center.
Also, based on my experience of not getting served a meal I ordered at
the venue hotel restaurant, my eating situation overall would have
been significantly worse had a chosen to stay at the venue and thus
not travel into the city at nite for a meal.  BTW, I had one of the
best meals ever in Maastricht at Le Courage, but that still doesn't
mean the city is a great place for a business meeting.

Personally, I don't routinely travel to places where my safety is put
at risk.  The first and most important step for self defense is
avoidance. My participation in the meeting precluded me from avoiding
the situations.

My point overall is actually quite simple - none of these things are
issues if the meetings are held in larger international cities or
secondary cities where everything is nearby.  We've had plenty of
meetings in a variety of locations that satisfy that criteria. My
point has been that those should be the top priorities for planning a
meeting and the pleasantness of the geographic location, weather,
tourism opportunities etc. should not be important factors in
selecting a venue.

Best Regards,
Mary.

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:54:40 -0700

On 8/29/10 2:03 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> secondary cities where everything is nearby.

I recommend you scroll back through your meeting archives to Paris,
reread, and reconsider that statement in light of events as they transpired.

Tegarding the incident of property crime in paris vs mastricht.

I lost equipment out of the venue during the week of setup in the
netherlands, this a rare but not entirely unexpected event, normally we
expect san francisco for example to be a bigger problem in this regard
(and it was during the last nanog meeting held there). mitigating this
exposure entirely is infeasible, but if the attrition rate exceedes our
ability to replace it then we have a problem. That didn't happen,
observably, once the particpants descended en masse the local
troglodites went back to their caves.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 17:06:00 -0500

I was in Paris and was certainly well aware of the issues with regards
to theft.  Personally, I imagine that emotionally and physically
recovering from the theft of personal property (as frustrating and as
upsetting as I know I would find that to be) is significantly less
traumatic than recovering from a physical, in particular sexual
assault.  Again, the female perspective has it's own set of issues
that has the potential to make a physical attack much more life
impacting than it does a male, which might be why there seems to be
difficulty in understanding the point I raise.  I already have two
kids (now teenagers, which may be why I seem to be able to debate ad
naseum on topics such as this) and I really don't want to have to deal
with a third (or the alternative choice relate thereto which is a
choice I personally could not make).

Mary.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:12:05 -0400

--On Sunday, August 29, 2010 14:29 -0500 Mary Barnes
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Joel,
> 
> Thank you so much for your sensitivity - you've done a
> wonderful job of re-enforcing the idea that IETF is a hostile
> environment for women.  My guess is that you've never
> personally been in a situation where you've been on a train
>...

Joel,

While I've tried to avoid commenting on the general whining and
complaining, I fear that I have to side with Mary on this one.
While our weighting factors are different, I think it is the
obligation of the Secretariat and the IAOC's meetings committee
to find locations at which the people who contribute
significantly can have an efficient and productive meeting, with
a minimum of distractions from logistical, health, and safety
problems.  While one can take the position that people who don't
find a meeting site appropriate should just not come, doing that
changes the profile of people who are invited to participate in
the IETF from "interested in the improvement of the Internet and
(we hope) technically competent and willing to do work" to
include "have sufficient free time to spend extra time traveling
relative to other cities in the same region, have no health
problems that make one location more attractive than another,
aren't women traveling alone or those whose dress is
distinctive, don't have problems with air of marginal quality or
special food requirements, etc."   

I think that change would be a considerable disadvantage to the
Internet and the IETF; YMMD.

I don't expect the Secretariat/ IOAC to cater to everyone's
slightest whim and I actually do expect those with special needs
to be willing to exert some extra effort, but I also expect that
the Secretariat/IAOC efforts will extend to making attendance
plausible for as broad a range of active participants as
possible.  I also expect that those efforts will go beyond
believing whatever the would-be host tells the meeting
committee.  And I believe that, if the IAOC selects an
out-of-the-way location (for whatever reason) in which we can't
be together in a single hotel or small cluster of
closely-located hotels that are readily accessible from a hub
international airport, the IAOC and Secretariat thereby take on
extra responsibility for being sure that the right information
is available and accurate.   That extra effort and expectation
is, IMO, simply part of the cost of such a meeting -- if the
cost of having the Secretariat, IAD, or IAOC do the
investigations is too high, then the IAOC needs to decide that
the site is too expensive.

Sure, we can all do our own checking and trip planning, but I
think that, somehow, it is in the best interests of the IETF
that most of us spend whatever time we are willing to contribute
on substantive work, not trying, one at a time, to track down
logistical details (I recognize that some people have corporate
or organizational travel departments who can deal with those
issues, but think it would be a bad idea to further bias IETF
participate toward them).

And I find the evidence, via the venue survey and the failure to
understand that Minneapolis and Maastricht are very different,
that the IAOC doesn't "get" any of this to be extremely
problematic relative to the future of the IETF.

Again, YMMD.

    john

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:59:06 -0700 (PDT)

John,

I agree 100% with everything you said here, execpt for the part about
"we don't get it". I don't think I need to go over again why 
Maastricht was chosen nor elaborate further on the surprises we
encountered onsite, so let's just say that we will try to do better
next time and move on.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:02:00 -0700

>  tourism opportunities etc. should not be important factors in

I think Mary is right.  (I also don't like the attitude in some 
replies that if anyone had a poor experience with Maastricht it is 
their own fault for being a dolt.)

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
I personally think we developed language because of our
deep need to complain.                    --Lily Tomlin

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:11:17 -0400

--On Sunday, August 29, 2010 15:59 -0700 Ole Jacobsen
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> John,
> 
> I agree 100% with everything you said here, execpt for the
> part about "we don't get it". I don't think I need to go over
> again why  Maastricht was chosen nor elaborate further on the
> surprises we encountered onsite, so let's just say that we
> will try to do better next time and move on.

I am really uninterested in discussing the Maastricht situation
further except insofar as I think there are lessons in it that
have not been absorbed yet.

I would feel much more confident about who does and does not
"get it" were it not for Ray's little survey equating Maastricht
and Minneapolis.  If that difference (fairly significant
international airport with good connections from several others,
easy and fairly quick transport from airport to hotel, in-hotel
meeting in hotel large enough to accommodate most of us, several
other hotels within easy walking distance, a large variety of
nearby eating places, ... versus "none of the above") wasn't
painfully clear long before the survey was sent out, then
_someone_ doesn't get it.

    john

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:11:53 -0700

>  special food requirements, etc."

It really comes down to which bias to apply in site selection: 
towards those who want to be a tourist, or those who want to do work.

>  possible.

I would have thought this to be obvious, but from the comments in 
Maastricht and here, it's not.

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
For best results, be sure to double clutch when you paradigm shift.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:19:58 -0700 (PDT)

I agree. Unfortunate comparison of two cities.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:23:49 -0400

On Aug 29, 2010, at 7:11 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:

> It really comes down to which bias to apply in site selection: towards those who want to be a tourist, or those who want to do work.

Based on my observation of and participation in the meeting selection process, the IAOC is (and has been throughout its existence) strongly weighted towards arranging meetings for those who want to do work. Touristic aspects hardly enter in.

Regards
Marshall 

> I would have thought this to be obvious, but from the comments in Maastricht and here, it's not.
> 
> -- 
> Randall Gellens

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:31:05 -0700

At 7:23 PM -0400 8/29/10, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

>  Based on my observation of and participation in the meeting 
> selection process, the IAOC is (and has been throughout its 
> existence) strongly weighted towards arranging meetings for those 
> who want to do work. Touristic aspects hardly enter in.

In various discussions prior to, during, and after Maastricht, my 
impression is that any complaint was dismissed with expressions of 
how delightful the city is.  I apologize for allowing this impression 
to color my idea of the actual site selection process.

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
An algorithm must be seen to be believed.  -- Donald Knuth

---

From: "Dan Harkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:00:13 -0700 (PDT)

Uhm, no. If someone wants to put a little salt in their soup do you
suggest that the whole shaker be poured into the bowl? Taking a position
to an absurd extreme is fallacious.

  Dan.

On Sun, August 29, 2010 5:21 am, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Ah so the salt lake city model where everyone stayed at the same hotel
> and there was only one bar in town would be ideal...
>
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Dan Harkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi Hannes,
>>
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:26:04 -0700

On 8/29/10 3:12 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> problems. 

Right, so when you find those fault free-venues lets use them...

In the mean time the netherlands was a lovely country where I was unable
to stay longer.

Our hosts were gracious and under the conditions we set for ourselves in
2008 it was the venue available.

It was not problem free.

> While one can take the position that people who don't

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:06:57 +0700

> Are there any smoke-free restaurants near the site, or even anywhere

Don't worry: the Disneyfication of the planet continues apace & the Chinese,
being good capitalists, have also discovered the profit advantages in
controlling human behavior as opposed to actual air quality.  I'm sure that
you will be able to find many places to soak up your preferred mixture of
toxic pollutants without any offensive additions.

...

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:39:01 -0500

At 06:31 PM 8/29/2010, Randall Gellens wrote:
>how delightful the city is.

got that impression a few times too, which I didn't like ...

james

>I apologize for allowing this impression to color my idea of the 
>actual site selection process.
>
>--
>Randall Gellens

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:11:40 -0700

>  toxic pollutants without any offensive additions.

Of course different people see things differently, but I find it hard 
to see how you can compare not being forced against one's will to 
smoke to Disney's bland entertainment.  Personally, I have no 
interest in controlling anyone's behavior, *except* that I prefer 
that someone else's choice not drag me into it.  If you want to 
drink, shoot heroin, skydive, whatever, I don't care at all unless 
you try to force me to do the same.  When someone smokes in public, 
every else is forced to smoke as well.  If you want to inject 
nicotine during an IETF session or at dinner, I could not care less. 
Just don't force me to as well.  As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver 
Wendell Holmes wrote, "The right to swing my fist ends where the 
other man's nose begins."

I really cannot figure out what what you are saying about the 
Chinese.  I am not aware of them controlling smoking in public, so I 
assume you're talking about something else, but what?  Can you please 
clarify?

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Perhaps the real reason why we have always been able to champion free
speech in this country is that we know perfectly well that hardly
anybody has got anything to say, and that no one will listen to anyone
that has.       -- Editorial, Daily Mail [British Paper, date unknown]

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:38:23 +0700

Randall Gellens [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

> smoke to Disney's bland entertainment.  

A little less hyperbole would go a long way toward making this conversation
productive: nobody is forcing you against your will to do anything, let
alone smoke.  Everybody makes choices every day, always choosing those
things they perceive as preferable (if possible).  Maybe Qualcomm is
actually forcing you against your will to go and breathe the abysmal air in
Beijing for a week but I doubt it: they would probably be happy to save the
expense & you could always resign.  Even if there were no non-smoking
restaurants anywhere in China you would have a number of options for feeding
yourself for the week.  If, in that situation, you were to enter a
restaurant I doubt strongly that it would be because you were in chains with
a gun to your head; rather, it would be because you found it preferable to
the alternatives.  

> Personally, I have no
> that someone else's choice not drag me into it.  

A one-man spaceship sounds like the only answer, then, since other people's
choices 'drag you into it' virtually constantly.

> If you want to
> every else is forced to smoke as well.  

Nonsense: there is always, at least, the option to move away.  

> If you want to inject
> Just don't force me to as well.  

I can only assume that you never actually been forced to do anything; I
cannot otherwise explain your cavalier use of the word.

> As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver

Again, refraining from hyperbole would be helpful.  Only in the most fevered
imagination could a person smoking 25 feet away be equated with a personal,
physical attack.

> assume you're talking about something else, but what?  Can you please

Sorry for the lack of clarity: I really thought that my meaning was obvious.
Anyway, especially since they "cleaned up" the town in the run-up to the
Olympics there are (in my experience) lots of non-smoking restaurants in
Beijing.  For example, all of the restaurants in the Shangri-La have
non-smoking sections.  Here is a link to a non-smoking (& cheap) 4* hotel
closer than the Nikko:
http://www.agoda.com/asia/china/beijing/jiu_zhou_commercial_hotel.html. 

...

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:17:36 -0400

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 04:02:00PM -0700, Randall Gellens wrote:
> I think Mary is right.  (I also don't like the attitude in some replies 
> that if anyone had a poor experience with Maastricht it is their own 
> fault for being a dolt.)

FWIW, I don't like the attitude in some of the messages that if one
doesn't agree Maastricht was a poor venue, one is an insensitive clod.

It seems to me that some people found the venue less good, and some
found it acceptable.  (I found it acceptable, for instance.  But I
like trains.  Even crowded short hop ones on a Friday afternoon when I
am very tired.)

Moreover, several of the dissatisfied seem to feel that anything less
than total agreement requires yet another frontal assault on that
disagreement.  The present thread, if memory serves, got started by
someone who decided that, since his ranting on another list didn't
achieve the desired gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, he'd
try again on the IETF list.

I believe the IAOC has heard the complaints.  We can stop now.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:08:13 -0500

Yeah - we should stop, but you're just perpetrating the mentality that
has caused alot of the debate. Unfortunately, folks have
mis-interpreted the concerns a minority of us experienced at the IETF
(since we are a minority in terms of IETF participation) as a dislike
of Maastricht or lack of appreciation for the graciousness of the
host. It has nothing to do with either.  I personally found Maastricht
to be a charming city and the social was one of the best I've
attended. But, those two things IMHO have nothing to do with having an
effective business meeting that involves a diverse group of people.

The concerns raised  have to do with the fact that the meeting venue
did not satisfy the most basic requirements for a meeting that is
attended by a diverse group of people (who unfortunately are in the
minority) - access to food for people that are on restricted diets for
medical reasons,  personal safety and easy/convenient access to the
meeting venue (I can't fathom how someone that might be in a
wheelchair could have managed attending this meeting).  The fact that
we had lots of train hops wasn't that critical (although
inconvenient),  but I do have issue that the meeting was in city that
is not setup to handle international travelers that might arrive at
odd hours in the night.  I totally understand why the majority don't
get why this is a concern for some of us, but to dismiss it because it
wasn't an issue you personally have to deal with is the reason this
thread has gone on and on. Clearly, the concerns (of the minority) are
not considered important to others, which is a sad reflection on an
IETF that professes to be an open organization promoting participation
from a diverse group of people.

Best Regards,
Mary.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:21:09 -0800

> try again on the IETF list.

While the original post in the train thread may or may not
have been unpleasantly whiny, I think some excellent points
have been raised and the discussion hasn't deteriorated to
such an extent that it needs a moderator.  Some really nice
places are terrible meeting locations and some places that
aren't that well-liked as tourist destinations are excellent
meeting locations.  Trying to understand the differentiators
strikes me as a completely worthwhile exercise.

But in the meantime the discussion has thrown some light on
the requirements definition process, eh?

Melinda

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:43:07 -0700

On 8/28/2010 12:54 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
> the layout of the venue,...

A primary requirement for participating in a open environment like the IETF is 
the ability to apply damping filters, rather than getting distracted by what is 
often merely noise.

The single biggest example of being distracted is tending to class everything as 
noise and then complaining about the noise.  The complaint, itself, serves as 
another distraction.  It gets in the way of serious discussion about legitimate 
issues.

Yes we always have complaints about venues.  That does not make all of them 
silly or wrong.  We merely have to look for real patterns of complaints.

Some venues have had significant problems.  Not merely irritants or points of 
small inconvenience, but serious deficiencies.  Typically, careful venue 
selection could avoid most or all of these.

Maastricht is a delightful town... for tourism.  But for the IETF meeting, 
Maastricht displayed a strikingly large number of serious problems and there 
seems to be some consensus about this.  What is impressive to me is that a venue 
having displayed so many serious limitations and problems would garner any 
vigorous defense.

Perhaps the largest problem with venue discussions is the failure to identify 
salient, objective criteria and discuss meaningful implications of the criteria.

That basic failure reduces these exchanges to mere expressions of personal 
preference about a venue.  In other words, it makes it a popularity contest.

Mike St. Johns' posting:

<https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=53120&tid=1283016769>

is quite excellent, for its attempt to describe what he wants from a venue, in 
terms of participating in a meeting.

I suggest we should try to develop some language like his that garners 
meaningful consensus in terms of convenience, /total/ cost, functionality, 
reliability, and other core criteria.  Convenience covers travel, lodging, food, 
and other resources local to the venue.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 08:21:40 -0400

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:50:05 -0700

At 12:58 AM -0700 8/28/10, Fred Baker wrote:

>  Hiroshima, Barcelona, and Maastricht are equally "secondary" to me. 
> I take a commuter flight, I take a flight between hubs, and I do 
> something else (flight or train, and the train's a lot more 
> comfortable than flying), and I'm there. If I'm on three flights or 
> two and a train, to me that's pretty normal. Leaves me wondering 
> what the fuss is about.

I'm glad it was so easy for you to get to Maastricht and Hiroshima. 
I know that a number of people had equally easy access.  However, 
others had much more difficult journeys, involving multiple 
trains/taxis, and confusing and conflicting information.

> secondary, do you really want to go there?

Maastricht is not well-connected to international airports in the summer.

>  I agree they need to be good venues. Was Hiroshima a good venue, by 
> your analysis? It seemed very good to me. So did Maastricht, 
> although we had to fix the Internet access in the conference hotel. 
> My only complaint there, to be honest, is that I used Swisscom in 
> the Crowne Plaza and several other hotels while in Europe, and with 
> the exception of the NH Airport Brussels, they all had loss rates 
> on the order of 1% or greater for the duration that I was 
> measuring. I thought Maastricht was a great city.

In Hiroshima, we met in a large hotel in a dense area.  In 
Maastricht, there was only one hotel close to where we met, and the 
Internet access required a Herculean effort that I don't think we 
have a right to demand.  (It was difficult to find smoke-free food in 
Hiroshima, except for the nearby department store's food court, but I 
can live with that.)

So, I'd say both Maastricht and Hiroshima were hard to get to, and 
Maastricht additionally had less good facilities.

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the
time to make it shorter.                     --Blaise Pascal

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:34:55 -0700

On 8/30/10 8:08 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> wheelchair could have managed attending this meeting). 

The dutch interpret article 1 of their constitutions as guaranteeing
full access to participation in society. Both the rail system and the
civic venues are fully accessible.

> The fact that

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:12:42 -0700

At 10:43 AM -0700 8/28/10, Dave CROCKER wrote:

>  is quite excellent, for its attempt to describe what he wants from 
> a venue, in terms of participating in a meeting.
>
>  I suggest we should try to develop some language like his that 
> garners meaningful consensus in terms of convenience, /total/ cost, 
> functionality, reliability, and other core criteria.  Convenience 
> covers travel, lodging, food, and other resources local to the 
> venue.

An excellent suggestion.

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and
deserve to get it good and hard.
    --H. L. Mencken

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:25:42 -0700

At 9:34 AM -0700 8/30/10, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

>  (I can't fathom how someone that might be in a

In both directions between BRU and Maastricht I had to change trains 
multiple times, and several of the stations required me to carry my 
luggage up and down non-trivial staircases.  I wondered at the time 
how someone in a wheelchair or who had mobility difficulties could 
manage.  I realize these stations were in Belgium, not the 
Netherlands, so perhaps this explains it.

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Invention is the mother of necessity.       --Thorstein Veblen

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:46:20 +0200

On 30 aug 2010, at 20:25, Randall Gellens wrote:

> In both directions between BRU and Maastricht I had to change trains multiple times, and several of the stations required me to carry my luggage up and down non-trivial staircases.  I wondered at the time how someone in a wheelchair or who had mobility difficulties could manage.  I realize these stations were in Belgium, not the Netherlands, so perhaps this explains it.

In the Netherlands more modern stations have elevators. Intercity trains have an elevated entrance, so wheel chair users must inform the Dutch Railways of their travel plans so a ramp can be positioned for ingress and egress.

The journey from schiphol airport to the Maastricht main station required at least one change, but that one could be done as a cross/same platform change.

I haven't heard of any wheel chair accessible planes, though.