Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Criteria vs Considerations

From: "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:31:59 +0000

I have one more comment - I think that the primary hotel should have more
than 1/3 of the needed rooms unless the secondary hotel is right next to
the primary.   Yokohama would be an example where the hotels are close
enough to be considered part of the venue.  I realize this will reduce the
set of hotels that can accommodate the IETF, but it is something that many
hotels have been able to satisfy, so it is possible to have.

It promotes ease of meeting with people, especially during the winter
meetings where managing a winter coat etc, can be eased greatly if you can
stay in the venue hotel, or within a dash of the venue.

I would increase from 1/3 to at least 1/2, with 2/3 being even better.

-glenn

On 3/18/16, 2:41 PM, "Mtgvenue on behalf of Fred Baker (fred)"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>I have taken a crack at incorporating your thoughts regarding
>"Considerations". I *think* this addresses your concerns. Does it? Does
>anyone else have a comment?
>

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:59:34 +0000

Let's discuss this in the BOF.

> On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue