Subject: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to Prague (was: Re: Hilton Prague)

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:46:29 -0400

For those expressing a desire to return --soon and often-- to 
Prague and his hotel, one thought...

I like the hotel and the staff and the facilities.  I mostly 
like the city.   Under the right circumstances, I'd be delighted 
to come back.

I am also sympathetic to, and agree with, those who say "if you 
decide to come into a particular culture, you accept the norms 
of that culture and work with them".

However,..

I think there are issues about health and accessibility that 
supercede _any_ other considerations of meeting site choices. 
In order to have effective IETF meetings that are open to all 
participants and contributors in the IETF, we must put 
health-related criteria above all others.   If a country or city 
or hotel does not, or cannot, provide an environment in which 
people can attend a meeting for a week without the certainty of 
serious and immediate health damage from the atmosphere (indoor 
or outdoor), I will defend their right to make that decision, 
but the IETF should not even consider meeting there.   If a 
facility and city are not largely wheelchair-accessible, the 
IETF should not even consider meeting there.  And so on 
(although I don't think the list is very long).

There may be tradeoffs if a facility can provide a truly 
effective smoke-free environment or adequate mobility 
accommodations -- telling an IETF participant that he or she may 
not be able to comfortably leave the meeting hotel for a week is 
unattractive, but may not be a showstopper if there are adequate 
facilities within the meeting hotel.  But telling people that 
the cannot attend and participate and remain healthy is, from my 
perspective, just not acceptable if we have any other possible 
choice.

In the case of Prague, we heard the argument many times in the 
week before the meeting that this choice of city was reasonable 
because there are lots of participants in Europe and, to a 
European, one city is as good as another.  Ok.  But, if one 
believes that, then there is no excuse for going to a city that 
hasn't accepted growing norms, even in Europe, about indoor air 
quality (or, for that matter, accessibility standards or 
anything else that belongs on this short list of absolute 
priorities.

Even the "need to look at the people various visa regulations 
will keep out" issue is, to me, secondary to this one even 
though I consider that one very, very, important and hope we 
will never again hold two consecutive meetings that de facto 
exclude the same people.

I am luckier than Randy because my body's potentially serious 
reactions to small amounts of tobacco smoke can be kept within 
reasonable levels by a combination of caution and drugs.  But I 
don't like some of the drugs and, more important, they 
significantly reduce my ability to function (as some people may 
have noticed this week).  To either of us, this type of 
environment is a fairly clear "don't come and participate 
remotely if at all" message.   I do not believe IETF should be 
delivering that message, especially to active contributors.

    john

_______________________________________________
68ATTENDEES mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:50:33 +0200

John,

Though as an allergic person I'm very sympathetic to the requirements you
listed, I would like to give you a bit food for though: What is the standard
of air quality / health risk we should compare to? For instance, Europe has
banned gene manipulated food, and the use of growth hormones for domestic
animals because of health risks. Should we then avoid countries whose
standards are lesser because of health risks? What about outside air quality
and smog? And mercury levels in the locally available fish?

There are many risks to travelling in general. In addition, you are exposed
to different health risks in foreign countries than at home, or different
levels of the same risks.

If the IETF should take these risks into account we should consider what is
the standard to compare against. I'm not sure who could make that assessment
and which criteria should be used.

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Aaron Stone <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:44:30 -0700

I seems to me that a non-smoking lobby area should simply be one of the
many things that are negotiated with the conference venue. There must
already be negotiations on which and how many conference rooms, hotel
rooms, bringing in Internet access, and so on.

So let's add one more: if the hotel is in a country that allows smoking
indoors, the hotel must arrange for a significant non-smoking portion of
the lobby to allow free movement of smoke-sensitive participants from
the front door to the registration to the conference rooms.

Aaron

On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 19:50 +0200, Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:10:43 -0700

At 10:46 AM -0400 3/24/07, John C Klensin wrote:

>  I like the hotel and the staff and the facilities.  I mostly like 
> the city.   Under the right circumstances, I'd be delighted to come 
> back.

I agree.

> supercede _any_ other considerations of meeting site choices. In 
> order to have effective IETF meetings that are open to all 
> health-related criteria above all others.   If a country or city or 
> hotel does not, or cannot, provide an environment in which people 
> can attend a meeting for a week without the certainty of serious 
> and immediate health damage from the atmosphere (indoor or 
> outdoor), I will defend their right to make that decision, but the 
> IETF should not even consider meeting there.   If a facility and 
> city are not largely wheelchair-accessible, the IETF should not 
> even consider meeting there.  And so on (although I don't think the 
> list is very long).

Absolutely.  Very well put.  Thank you, John.

>  and smog? And mercury levels in the locally available fish?

I see this along the lines John laid out: if the facilities pose a 
barrier to participation, that is a problem.  Longer-term potential 
risks are not an immediate threat.  This includes mercury or PCB 
contamination, radon levels in the building, etc.

>  the front door to the registration to the conference rooms.

The problem with such approaches is that the smoke does not know to 
stay within the boundaries of an arbitrary-defined region.  Not even 
geopriv can help there, unfortunately.  Consider the oft-repeated 
no-peeing section in a swimming pool.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Some days you feel like Schrodinger's cat.   --M. S. Hutchenreuther

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:47:28 +0100

On Mar 24, 2007, at 8:44 PM, Aaron Stone wrote:
> I seems to me that a non-smoking lobby area should simply be one of  
> the many things that are negotiated with the conference venue.  
> There must already be negotiations on which and how many conference  
> rooms, hotel rooms, bringing in Internet access, and so on.
>
> So let's add one more: if the hotel is in a country that allows  
> smoking indoors, the hotel must arrange for a significant non- 
> smoking portion of the lobby to allow free movement of smoke- 
> sensitive participants from the front door to the registration to  
> the conference rooms.

I wonder if you are still in Prague, and if you are, the fact that  
the red "no smoking" signs in the lobby have all been replaced with  
green "smoking" signs?

What, specifically, is your complaint? It looks to me like this is  
exactly what happened. What John is complaining about is that there  
was an area that remained available to smokers.

---

From: Nemeth Krisztian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:11:24 +0200 (CEST)

Hi John,

Just a short question:

> Even the "need to look at the people various visa regulations will keep out" 
> issue is, to me, secondary to this one even though I consider that one very, 
> very, important and hope we will never again hold two consecutive meetings 
> that de facto exclude the same people.

I don't understand that. Why excluding people because of visa issues is 
better (or secondary, as you say) than excluding people with health 
issues? In my understanding in both cases someone innocent is excluded. In 
this case I'd count both parties and decide according to that. Or, better, 
think about is it possible to locally arrange a smoke-free zone (probably 
yes) or a visa-free zone (not likely).

--------------------------------------------------

And now for something completely different :)

In an IETF meeting people from all around the globe meet. Yes, I know the 
largest delagate is from the US, but as far as I remember the plenary, its 
share is about 30-40%. I guess it's quite straightforward, that traveling 
to a different country/continent does involve some unavoidable 
inconviniences for everyone who is non-local. It's true for non-european 
people to travelling to Prague (or even for the non-Czech Europeans), for 
a non-Japanese to Tokyo, but also for non US (or non-local) people 
traveling to e.g., San Diego. However, if we accept this, and furthermore 
take a look also at the advantages (e.g., many people enjoyed this 
beautiful city), I guess Prague wasn't such a bad place compared to the 
others.

Thanks,
 	Krisztian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:08:58 -0400

--On Saturday, March 24, 2007 22:47 +0100 Fred Baker 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> What, specifically, is your complaint? It looks to me like
> this is exactly what happened. What John is complaining about
> is that there was an area that remained available to smokers.

Fred, others may be making exactly that complaint.  I'm not.  I 
believe it is possible to have smoking areas, even indoor ones, 
from which the smoke does not escape.    How far one needs to go 
is a judgment call and my expectation is that IASA can, and 
should, do site evaluations and make such judgments.

Let me give an example:  The Hilton rather aggressively 
advertises the Chezhouse restaurant as completely non-smoking. 
However, at least normally, there are large open doors at the 
entrance of that restaurant.   There is a sitting area 
immediately outside that door.  Smoke drifts in and does so in 
moderately large quantities -- as Randy has noted a couple of 
times, the stuff is not good at obeying signs and while, by some 
definitions, "no smoking" means no one in an adjacent chair is 
smoking, that is not the point (anyone else remember when a 
well-known airline defined the non-smoking area as the seats to 
the left of the aisle and the smoking area as the seats to the 
left or vice versa?).    Now, in my experience, there are a 
number of methods that separate a smoking area from a 
non-smoking one.  One of them is known as a "door".  Two such 
devices are often even more effective.  It is also possible to 
arrange HVAC systems so that air flows outward from the 
restaurant rather than inward.  With such arrangements in place, 
if I had to hold my breath or wear a mask and goggles to 
traverse the portion of the lobby in front of the restaurant, I 
wouldn't like it and I'd probably whine a lot, but I could live 
with it.  But, for some of us, "non-smoking restaurant" needs to 
be "no smoke in the restaurant" (or smoke at homeopathic 
(homeopathological?) levels) to be meaningful.

Nemeth Krisztian <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I don't understand that. Why excluding people because of visa
> issues is better (or secondary, as you say) than excluding
> people with health issues? In my understanding in both cases
> someone innocent is excluded. In this case I'd count both
> parties and decide according to that. Or, better, think about
> is it possible to locally arrange a smoke-free zone (probably

In principle, you are, of course, correct.   In practice, ending 
up with sets of rules in which the system is so badly 
overconstrained that one can't hold meetings would put us into a 
fairly silly state.    As I mentioned in my earlier note, we 
normally meet in places where a significant number of IETF 
participants live.  Prague would probably be marginal except 
that people argued that, for the purpose of that guideline, the 
"place" was "Europe".  If there were no cities or facilities in 
Europe with acceptable breathing conditions, we would presumably 
have an overconstrained system because there are a _lot_ of IETF 
participants from Europe.   But such facilities exist, so we do 
have alternatives, and _that_ ought to put Prague (or at least 
this facility) well down on the list -- below some absolute 
cutoff -- until and unless things change.

The visa situation is unfortunate in just that regard.  The 
world's visa rules are such that a "don't go anywhere with 
unreasonable visa rules that would restrict attendance" would 
leave us nowhere to go.    So that, IMO, turns the visa 
situation into precisely the kind of counting, balancing the 
tradeoffs, and trying really hard to be sure that no one is 
excluded twice in a row if that is possible that your comments 
above suggest.   Because there are alternatives, the smoking and 
accessibility issues should, to me, be a nearly-absolute rule.

     john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:24:07 -0400

Jonne,

--On Saturday, March 24, 2007 19:50 +0200 "Soininen Jonne 
(Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> John,
>
> Though as an allergic person I'm very sympathetic to the
> requirements you listed, I would like to give you a bit food
> for though: What is the standard of air quality / health risk
> we should compare to? For instance, Europe has banned gene
> manipulated food, and the use of growth hormones for domestic
> animals because of health risks. Should we then avoid
> countries whose standards are lesser because of health risks?
> What about outside air quality and smog? And mercury levels in
> the locally available fish?

I didn't want to write an even longer essay but, as Randy 
pointed out, I tried to cover those issues in my note. 
Short-term exposure to things that might shorten life expectancy 
with long-term exposure doesn't make a hard exclusion criterion 
for me.  Holding a meeting in a badly polluted city but in a 
facility that takes "non smoking" sufficiently seriously to use 
high-quality filters on air conditioning and positive pressure 
arrangements is, I think, acceptable (even if I have to take 
special precautions to get to the facility and can't leave it 
all week).

For me, what all of these discussions have been about is that I 
expect the community to give the IASA guidance and I expect the 
IASA to follow that guidance to the extent possible.  I also 
expect the IASA to make tradeoffs and exercise judgment.  If the 
consequent decisions deviate significantly from the community 
guidance I expect the IAD or IAOC to explain those decisions and 
deviations --after the fact if necessary-- and to listen for 
additional guidance from the community (applying to future 
decisions) if it arrives.   That is all.  I don't think it is 
necessary or reasonable to impose air pollution maximum 
requirements in grams per liter of various particulate sizes.  I 
do believe that, if the IASA is given some "no smoking" or "few 
people getting shot in the streets" guidance, that site visits 
will exercise some care to  be sure those guidelines are being 
adhered to, rather than, e.g., accepting a hotel press release 
as sufficient.

And, as part of that, I expect the IASA to give the community 
feedback about what guidance it thinks it is getting and what 
general criteria it is going to consider so that we can check 
for synchronization and mutual understanding.   I hope you agree.

> There are many risks to travelling in general. In addition,
> you are exposed to different health risks in foreign countries
> than at home, or different levels of the same risks.
>
> If the IETF should take these risks into account we should
> consider what is the standard to compare against. I'm not sure
> who could make that assessment and which criteria should be
> used.

I hope you are not proposing to use the argument that absolute 
criteria are too hard so we should do nothing ... or that the 
IASA can and should ignore community guidance when no such 
criteria are specified and agreed to.

regards,
       john

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:31:19 -0700

> For me, what all of these discussions have been about is that I expect
> the community to give the IASA guidance and I expect the IASA to follow
> that guidance to the extent possible.  I also expect the IASA to make
> tradeoffs and exercise judgment.  If the consequent decisions deviate
> significantly from the community guidance I expect the IAD or IAOC to
> explain those decisions and deviations --after the fact if necessary--
> and to listen for additional guidance from the community (applying to
> future decisions) if it arrives.   That is all. 

I think at this point one would be hard-pressed to determine consensus
on the basis of the comments (on the subject of venue requirements) on
the mailing list.

One of the possible outcomes of course, is that there is no consensus.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 07:39:47 +0200

On Mar 25, 2007, at 6:24 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> general criteria it is going to consider so that we can check for  
> synchronization and mutual understanding.   I hope you agree.

Speaking as a member of the IASA...

...one who stepped into the role with a view to community service and  
whose opening comment from the floor was a many-minute diatribe on  
cookies that resulted in a later comment at the mike from an ARIN  
representative to the IESG that she was looking for hope regarding  
the matters at issue in the Internet and this community was too  
wrapped up in its kindergarden-class problems to give her much...

I have already been to a distinguished member of the community  
looking to resurrect an ID that I happen to know he was working on  
relating to such guidance perhaps a decade ago. It contained advice  
such as

  - has to be a city within rational travel from a major world air hub

Of course "rational" varies depending on country; a direct plane  
flight using A320/737-class aircraft from Frankfurt, LAX, or Sydney  
would be accepted, as would Yokohama, which is amply served by trains  
and busses from Tokyo Narita. Fargo North Dakota probably would not  
(a word to those who have not seen the movie "Fargo" - you should -  
and we would be a shock to that community).

The ID is nowhere to be found, but I suspect that the set of  
recommendations can be recreated. I think that is the superior approach.

I have to tell you that the discussion on this list has been  
interesting to say the least, and the amount of grousing about things  
that are true everywhere I go (and BTW which are better in Prague  
than they are in many places we have IETF meetings) has been  
disappointing to me personally. You, John, have tried hard to be  
reasonable in the statement of your concerns, but even you have been  
a little biased in the direction of complaining about things that are  
better managed here than they are in a lot of places I travel to.  
Good grief; in Santa Barbara, my home town, a non-smoking section  
often shares the air space with a smoking section. I have issues with  
smoke as well. I deal with that by choosing where I spend my money.

A historian reviewing the thread might conclude that we got dragged  
to the back side of nowhere and ate in Greasy Spoon restaurants. We  
didn't, guys. Get some perspective.

I observe that for every person with a complaint there have been two  
saying they loved it. I'm listening to those people as well.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:50:41 -0700 (PDT)

It's interesting that someone suggested Prague as the "new 
Minneapolis". I know it's been a while since we went to Minneapolis, 
but try to remember the decor, the food, presentation and general 
atmosphere of the place (excluding smoke I suppose). Think about the 
"lounge" on the Club floor in Minneapolis (if you ever made it up 
there) with "honor coupons" per drink and the brightly colored 
corn-chips. Both Hiltons, but I know which one I would pick. Any day.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 09:20:55 +0200

OK, if you are listening.

My experience with the hotel was great. 
The staff was courteous, helpful, and efficient (even the plumber who
did not always any English).
This is quite unlike my experience with the Hilton Anatole where I was
charged for restaurants I did not visit;
it took several hours to remove these charges from my bill before
checkout, and then they simply turned up 
as an additional charge to my card. It took a further 2 weeks of
telephone calls to get that cancelled.

I did not experience any smoke problems, although I am very senstive to
smoke.

I walked around a bit and was not pickpocketed. In fact, I don't know
anyone who was.
This contrasts with Vienna and Paris venues - for each of which I
personally know several people
who were robbed.
 
The meeting rooms were "satisfactory plus".
(In a quite unrelated remark - I have been back to sites where IETFs
have been for other conferences,
and although often the WiFi works well, no other conference seems to
understand the need to spread
around electric receptacles. I remarked about this at a recent
conference and was told that they did not
want to encourage people to do their email instead of listening to the
talks. The result is that
at refreshment breaks everyone scrambles for outlets, often sharing one
with four or five receptacle multipliers.
So thanks to the IETF for the electricity.)

For me it was an easy 4-hour direct flight. San Diego requires an 18h
flight to LAX
and then a connection, and ends up taking me 24 hours each way.
For any US site that I reach via JFK airport I now have to leave at
least 3 hours for the connection,
making most US sites a hardship.

Prague is lovely (I took the 3-hour tour, too bad it was off-season and
the night tour was not running).

I too vote to come back.

Y(J)S

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 09:05:34 -0400

The air quality in some of the main meeting rooms was the *only*
problem I saw with Prague.  Yes there was smoke leakage but that's
true everywhere outside of the USA.  Oh, also my room telephone only
rang in the bathroom.  I told the hotel staff it was a fantastic
conference facility in a great city and I would be happy to come back
any time.  I'm sure they can fix that if we tell them it's the only
drawback to "the new Minneapolis".

Scott

p.s. In 1990, Alan Levy, Editor in Chief of The Prague Post,
proclaimed that Prague was the "Left Bank of the 90s," the new
European haven for American artists.  Now it's "the new Minneapolis of
the 10s".

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:01:22 -0400

I don't recall seeing all of these complaints about smoke at the London and
Paris meetings, which to my memory were much smokier environments, both
inside and outside the hotel. Personally, I really enjoyed
Prague and the hotel and would be happy to return (this was my third time in
Prague and my second time at this hotel). I'm sorry that a few individuals
had strong allergic reactions, but I doubt that we
could meet most anywhere outside of North America without that being a problem.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Doug Montgomery <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:55:27 -0400

> European haven for American artists.  Now it's "the new Minneapolis of
Before you go that far ("the new Minneapolis"), you might check out the
(mindless) film Rex-patriates (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405276/).
Quoting the plot summary: "By the mid-90s the expatriates' dreams are
foiled and Prague becomes a dark cauldron of failure. The obvious
solution would be to leave the city, but there is just one problem,the
old crone. It is as Franz Kafka observed: "Prague doesn't let go. This
old crone has claws. One has to yield or else.""

Fine location, better than most.  Hotel reacted well to issues as they
came up, and I am sure with a bit more advance warning, they will do
even better next time.

Think about adding to the "Note Well" Disclaimer a warning that "A
participant in an IETF meeting is deemed to accept that the IETF IAOC
may not be able to control all aspects of local societal norms at the
meeting venue, nor the exact availability nor content of cookies during
the refreshment breaks."   Maybe an explicit agreement acknowledging
that things won't be perfect, will dampen the volume of complaints that
it was not.
dougm

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:07:38 +0100

I think it may be due to the changes in the last years in regulation about
smoking. We are getting used to find more and more countries and venues with
anti-smoke regulations.

Also it may happen that if we return to Prague in a couple of years or so,
there is no smoke at all in the Hilton because they need to accommodate
their regulations to the EC ones, which are against tobacco even in
advertisements, however each country has some degree of freedom (within
specific time frames) to adopt them (as already happened very quickly in
some countries such as Spain, Italy, France, etc.).

Regards,
Jordi

De: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:01:22 -0400
Para: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
CC: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Asunto: [***SPAM*** Score/Req: 10.4/4.5] Re: [68ATTENDEES] Returning to
Prague (was: Re: Hilton Prague)

I don't recall seeing all of these complaints about smoke at the London and
Paris meetings, which to my memory were much smokier environments, both
inside and outside the hotel.  Personally, I really enjoyed Prague and the
hotel and would be happy to return (this was my third time in Prague and my
second time at this hotel). I'm sorry that a few individuals had strong
allergic reactions, but I doubt that we could meet most anywhere outside of
North America without that being a problem.
 
Cheers,
Andy

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

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.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: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:11:47 +0100

On 25 mar 2007, at 15.55, Doug Montgomery wrote:

>  Maybe an explicit agreement acknowledging

do you really think so?  can't imagine it working that way.  we would  
just have one more thing to whinge about: the fact that we weren't  
supposed to whinge.

a.

---

From: "Natale, Bob" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:00:45 -0400

Hi,

Fred Baker wisely noted: 
> I observe that for every person with a complaint
> there have been two saying they loved it. 
> I'm listening to those people as well.

Include me in the "loved it" group...with a slightly different twist
than I've read so far:

As it turned out, I registered too late for the Hilton block of rooms
at the IETF rate, and ended up in the Prague Marriott.  The room rate
was somewhat higher (as noted on the IETF web site), but the
accommodations were excellent, as was every aspect of staying there
(food, services, staff, security, very good wrt non-smoking
considerations).  The relatively short and brisk walks to and from the
Hilton were pleasant and refreshing, even several times a day...and
being that much closer to the old town commercial and cultural venues
was a definite added bonus.  (The Prague Marriott extended the
discounted IETF rate to me for the entire duration of my stay -- Sat to
Sat -- including high-speed Internet (no glitches whatsoever) and an
outstanding full breakfast each day.)

The Prague IETF meeting was well worth the cost...and I would
definitely return to the Prague Marriott for a vacation in Prague (if I
could afford their regular rates...which I doubt).

One last thing: While I empathize with Andy's comments about air travel
today, I have to say that Air France did a great job for me on this
trip (IAD->CDG->PRG and return)...esp. considering the very bad weather
conditions at IAD on March 16.

The Prague IETF experience was a great one for me, in all
respects....and I also love Minneapolis!

Cheers,
BobN

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 1:40 AM
...

---

From: Robert Loomans <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:43:20 +1000

Scott W Brim wrote:
> true everywhere outside of the USA.

Careful making blanket assertions like this. There are a number of
places in the world that have been non-smoking inside for a long while,
including Australia and New Zealand.

Rob

-- 
Robert Loomans                                 Email:  [email-masked]
Programmer/Analyst, APNIC                      Phone:    +61 7 3858 3100
http://www.apnic.net                             Fax:    +61 7 3858 3199
_______________________________________________
68ATTENDEES mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:10:09 -0400

As a non-smoker from a family where one parent died from smoking-related 
causes I am very sensitive to the matter.We will be more diligent on the 
matter.

Ray

John C Klensin wrote:

> For those expressing a desire to return --soon and often-- to Prague 
> and his hotel, one thought...
>
> I like the hotel and the staff and the facilities.  I mostly like the 
> city.   Under the right circumstances, I'd be delighted to come back.
>
> I am also sympathetic to, and agree with, those who say "if you decide 
> to come into a particular culture, you accept the norms of that 
> culture and work with them".
>
> However,..
>
> I think there are issues about health and accessibility that supercede 
> _any_ other considerations of meeting site choices. In order to have 
> effective IETF meetings that are open to all participants and 
> contributors in the IETF, we must put health-related criteria above 
> all others.   If a country or city or hotel does not, or cannot, 
> provide an environment in which people can attend a meeting for a week 
> without the certainty of serious and immediate health damage from the 
> atmosphere (indoor or outdoor), I will defend their right to make that 
> decision, but the IETF should not even consider meeting there.   If a 
> facility and city are not largely wheelchair-accessible, the IETF 
> should not even consider meeting there.  And so on (although I don't 
> think the list is very long).
>
> There may be tradeoffs if a facility can provide a truly effective 
> smoke-free environment or adequate mobility accommodations -- telling 
> an IETF participant that he or she may not be able to comfortably 
> leave the meeting hotel for a week is unattractive, but may not be a 
> showstopper if there are adequate facilities within the meeting 
> hotel.  But telling people that the cannot attend and participate and 
> remain healthy is, from my perspective, just not acceptable if we have 
> any other possible choice.
>
> In the case of Prague, we heard the argument many times in the week 
> before the meeting that this choice of city was reasonable because 
> there are lots of participants in Europe and, to a European, one city 
> is as good as another.  Ok.  But, if one believes that, then there is 
> no excuse for going to a city that hasn't accepted growing norms, even 
> in Europe, about indoor air quality (or, for that matter, 
> accessibility standards or anything else that belongs on this short 
> list of absolute priorities.
>
> Even the "need to look at the people various visa regulations will 
> keep out" issue is, to me, secondary to this one even though I 
> consider that one very, very, important and hope we will never again 
> hold two consecutive meetings that de facto exclude the same people.
>
> reasonable levels by a combination of caution and drugs.  But I don't 
> like some of the drugs and, more important, they significantly reduce 
> my ability to function (as some people may have noticed this week).  
> To either of us, this type of environment is a fairly clear "don't 
> come and participate remotely if at all" message.   I do not believe 
> IETF should be delivering that message, especially to active 
> contributors.
>
>    john
>
>

---

From: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:00:25 -0400

I would love to come back to Prague.

  But, for the before/after meeting activities, would be really nice if it 
were April - October.  There were a half dozen places (mostly a bit 
outside central Prague) that I wanted to see, that were closed from 
November through March.

And lets wait until after the National Technology Museum reopens - 
supposed to be some time in 2008. (Might even be a site for a Social?)

Janet

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:44:06 -0700

At 7:39 AM +0200 3/25/07, Fred Baker wrote:

> interesting to say the least, and the amount of grousing about 
> things that are true everywhere I go (and BTW which are better in 
> Prague than they are in many places we have IETF meetings) has been 
> reasonable in the statement of your concerns, but even you have 
> been a little biased in the direction of complaining about things 
> that are better managed here than they are in a lot of places I 
> travel to. Good grief; in Santa Barbara, my home town, a 
> non-smoking section often shares the air space with a smoking 
> section. I have issues with smoke as well. I deal with that by 
> choosing where I spend my money.

It seems that my attempts to be clear, reasonable, and precise have 
failed.  As I see it, the purpose of  holding an IETF meeting is to 
meet, that is, be physically present in the same room and do the work 
of the IETF.  The sightseeing, weather, restaurants, and so forth are 
secondary considerations.  When the  meeting rooms are so smokey as 
to preclude or limit participation, I think that is a problem.  This 
is, to me, a very different problem than a lack of non-smoking 
restaurants.  In Paris and Prague I was able to find at least a few 
totally non-smoking restaurants.  At an OMA meeting in Barcelona I 
was not able to, and after trying several times finally gave up and 
ate my meals via room service.  If I have to not venture out of the 
hotel, if I have to send my clothes to the laundry because they are 
saturated with smoke and it makes me ill, and I have to pay that 
myself because my employer won't, I'll accept all that.  But if the 
meeting rooms won't let me participate, I object.  If you think this 
is whiny and unreasonable of me, if you think I am trying to impose 
my societal norms on the rest of the world, then I'm sorry but I 
think it is you who are unreasonable.

California, by the way, as I understand it has a state-wide law that 
prohibits smoking in most indoor workplaces, included restaurants and 
bars.  So I'm curious as to which establishments in Santa Barbara are 
smokey?
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.                --G.B. Shaw

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:45:35 -0700

>  I did not experience any smoke problems, although I am very senstive to

I'm curious: did you participate in any meetings held in the Congress rooms?
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
f u cn rd ths, itn tyg h myxbl cd.

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:44:06 -0700

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:45:35 -0700

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:58:37 -0700

At 9:20 AM +0200 3/25/07, Yaakov Stein wrote:

>  This is quite unlike my experience with the Hilton Anatole

I find the several comparisons that have been made to the recent 
Dallas IETF interesting.  To me, that IETF was fine in that I was 
able to go to the meetings and do IETF work (aside from the initial 
difficulties getting to the hotel because of the flooding).

 From a standpoint of which city has a richer cultural history that is 
fascinating to visit, of course Prague  wins easily.  But from a 
narrow viewpoint of in which city it was easier to get IETF work 
done, I'd have to say Dallas or Minneapolis beat Prague.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend too much time reading
this sort of trash.