Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Comment on Section 4: "Transparency"

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:57:45 -0800

Hi, all:

We never received any feedback on Adam's comments in
March (mail here, in case you still don't have it:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mtgvenue/current/msg00037.html)

The key question was this:

On 3/31/16, Adam Roach wrote:
> This kind of contractual information -- attendees' negotiated
> rights when hotels overbook -- should be in the hands of people
> before they arrive at the hotel. Had such been the case in Orlando,
> displaced attendees could have insisted that the hotel honor their
> agreement. Far from being confidential, these provisions should be
> published quite prominently.
>
> For this draft, I think the action is to change the example so that
> it doesn't indicate "venue contracts" as a class of information
> that is implied to be confidential in its entirety. Instead, it
> should call out specific kinds of information (which may appear in
> contracts) that are considered confidential.

Comments?

Melinda